Steve Bannon’s departure from the White House is dominating all headlines and cable news coverage, as it was always fated to since the supposed Svengali of the chaos president first captivated the media last year. Bannon, the former (and future?) Breitbart mogul, was one of several Donald Trump acolytes singularly obsessed over, his status in Trumplandia an unending focus of journalistic firepower.

We knew the end was coming, even if it still seems stunning that a figure so close to Trump’s id would be shown the door. Political reporters have devoted much of their existence to telling us whether Bannon was staying or going, why Reince Priebus was in trouble, why Anthony Scaramucci understood Trump until he didn’t. Like alt-Shakespeare, with the press doubling as theater critics and a rapacious audience, these White House characters swallowed airtime and countless front pages.

This is a genre of peppy Washington reporting that has found new life in Trump’s White House, where palace intrigue, for much of the reporter class, is just about the only intrigue. “Who’s up and who’s down?” this reporting must ask, always.

Journalists wonder, hunched over laptops, stuffing in as many juicy anonymous quotes and anecdotes that capture the unprecedented instability of this administration. For those who obsess over personnel change, these are truly the greatest of times. Gossip reigns eternal.

But the tropes of DC journalism, where process will almost always trump policy, are especially ill-suited for today, and distract from what is happening now.

It doesn’t much matter if Bannon is canned, if staffers can’t just waltz into the Oval Office now that John Kelly runs the show, or that Hope Hicks is such a fantastic survivor. What matters, as always, is what Trump is actually doing – and what he still hopes to accomplish as long as he clings to power.

What much reporting on the president leaves out is the real-world relevance and impact. If you’re stuck in an underfunded housing project, living in an economically-crushed town, or just trying to keep your health coverage, the state of Trump’s motley muddle of advisers and hangers-on means little to you.

The argument that certain power figures in the administration deserve coverage because they impact policy is somewhat valid, but reporting brainpower should be spent trying to explain what this policy is and why, in most cases, it harms the country’s most vulnerable people.

Bannon’s departure won’t change the fundamental reality of a Trump White House that will always – until it’s driven from office by an election, a scandal or term-limits – have a retrograde approach to race relations and remain a beacon for white supremacists. It probably won’t change what’s coming next.

Remember when the Times was lauded, at least in reporting circles, for a July sit-down interview they scored with Trump that made the headline-grabbing news that he was angry at his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and thinking about dumping him? The news cycle was consumed with a story it could easily digest: would Sessions stay or go? The idea that he was an early and ardent Trump supporter attracted an extra dollop of intrigue.

Meanwhile, Sessions hasn’t gone anywhere. He is actively dismantling the Justice Department’s protections of civil rights and civil liberties. His mandate that prosecutors pursue the most serious possible charges in every case remains. He is drastically reducing the Justice Department’s oversight of police departments.

On other matters, Trump’s White House is chugging along. His EPA administrator, the climate change-denying Scott Pruitt, has stripped numerous environmental regulations. An executive order already rewrote major parts of Barack Obama’s clean power plan. In June, Pruitt moved to scrap laws that protect waterways that provide drinking water for about a third of the population.

In New York City, a vast system of public housing – sheltering more people than the entire city of Boston – faces devastating budgets cut from a Trump administration determined to make America as socially Darwinian as it can.

All of these things, at some point or another, drew coverage, but nothing on the scale of the media’s unrelenting desire to turn people like Bannon, Kelly, Scaramucci and Spicer into household celebrities.

These are the easy stories, less intellectually taxing and more likely to get a traffic or ratings spike. You don’t have to be a criminal justice or housing policy expert to write about why Joshua Green’s new book about Bannon is rubbing a narcissistic president the wrong way.

Just as relevant for a media class encountering an ever more distrustful public, documenting the machinations of a palace on fire allows journalists to avoid taking sides in a fight that matters. It continues the comfortable fiction of journalists as neutral, unbiased arbiters, with views somehow unruffled by the currents raging around them. Journalists don’t have to own their biases. They can play pretend.

They can keep your eyes and ears glued to the palace, sniffing for scoops. It’s safer there.