In the days since the presidential election, much media attention has been devoted to how Donald Trump will govern, what his priorities will be, who he’ll name to his cabinet – that sort of thing. Instead, I’d like to direct attention on the media itself, and talk about how mainstream media outlets will likely respond, and in fact have already begun to respond, to a Trump presidency.

A confrontational, oppositional press that challenges the powerful is essential for the healthy operation of a functioning democracy. Unfortunately, here in the United States the mainstream corporate media has essentially been co-opted and absorbed into the existing power structure. So now that Donald Trump sits atop that power structure, there’s little chance the mainstream media will do much to challenge him.

So what WILL the media likely do in response to Trump’s presidency? Let’s break it down.

First, what they’re NOT going to do is blame the leadership of the Democratic Party for losing the election.

The establishment, of which the mainstream media are a fundamental element, operates like any other organism – and a primary function of any organism is to protect itself from outside threats. The Democratic Party leadership – Donna Brazile, Chuck Schumer, John Podesta and others – are also key members of the establishment in good standing, so they will not face harsh scrutiny from their friends in the mainstream media, despite what can only be considered a colossal failure in losing a presidential election to a certifiable clown.

As an example we can look to what happened after it became obvious that the Iraq War had become a catastrophic debacle — the architects of and cheerleaders for the Iraq War continued to make regular appearances on the Sunday talk shows, in major newspapers’ opinion pages and on foundations’ and corporations’ boards. You know who we DIDN’T see on TV after the Iraq War? Prominent critics of the war like Phil Donahue, Hans Blix or Scott Ritter. Their disqualifying offense? Questioning the establishment — and being right.

So instead of blaming powerful Democrats for this failure, media representatives will point the finger of blame at the powerless — typically third party candidates, millennials, minorities and disaffected non-voters. Anyone but their fellow members of the establishment.

Next, they will ignore or conveniently forget about many of the extreme and outrageous statements Trump made during the campaign, whether insults directed at Mexicans, Muslims and women, mocking a disabled reporter, bragging about his penis size, whatever. They actually established this precedent during the campaign itself. Early on, when Trump was asked about leading the birther movement, he responded by saying he doesn’t talk about that any more. And for the most part the media looked at each other and said, “Oh, he doesn’t talk about that any more, OK.” Late in the campaign, during a debate, CNN’s Lester Holt DID ask Trump about his questioning of Obama’s legitimacy, but only after Trump himself had brought the topic of Obama’s birth certificate back up, albeit to inaccurately blame Hillary Clinton for starting the birther movement.

Next, the corporate media will seek to normalize what, previously, would have been considered unacceptable treatment of the press by a presidential administration. We can see this already happening as the Trump transition team is traveling without the “protective pool” of journalists who traditionally accompany the president at all times in case a crisis arises that they need to cover immediately. It’s a small thing, but it’s the beginning of much more to come.

The press will adjust accordingly. They have a well-established track record of shifting the narrative to suit powerful interests. Take the filibuster — for more than 80 years the filibuster was a rarely-invoked procedural move in the United States Senate that allowed the minority party to delay or thwart extraordinarily controversial bills from coming up for a vote. Otherwise, for 200+ years, the Senate operated almost exclusively on the basis of majority rule — if a bill could muster 51 votes, it passed. But in the past 25 years or so, use of the filibuster has skyrocketed, almost exclusively by Republicans. By now requiring a 60-vote supermajority on virtually all legislation they oppose, the GOP has essentially brought the Senate to a standstill, fundamentally undermining a critical element of the legislative process. And yet the media have normalized this behavior, now routinely referring to bills in the Senate that, quote, “failed to reach the necessary 60 percent vote threshold to pass” or which, quote, “lost by a 55-45 margin.” The extraordinary and unprecedented use of the filibuster to perpetuate endless gridlock? That just goes unmentioned.

So you can expect whatever extraordinary and unprecedented efforts the Trump Administration dreams up to limit access and press freedom to be similarly normalized — by the press themselves.

And finally, you can look forward to mainstream press outlets bending over backwards to prove how “fair” and “even-handed” they are in their treatment of Trump. For decades the GOP have been working the refs by claiming media bias and decrying the “liberal media” — that’s not only going to continue under Trump but it will grow exponentially worse. And I’m sure you can guess who gets to be the judge of what’s “fair.”

Soon even the mildest criticism of Trump from the press will receive a swift and vigorous response, likely combined with an implicit threat. Anyone in the mainstream press considering demonstrating genuine independence or being critical of Trump outside of “acceptable” limits will learn their lesson – and fast. And with good reason too – even during the campaign Trump punished press outlets he felt stepped out of line. Now he’ll have his hands on the levers of power and he won’t be afraid to use them. As our future guide, let’s look at Trump’s signature campaign issue: building a wall along the Mexican border. How much will mainstream press outlets ask him about the progress of the wall? When the midterm elections come up in two years, will they continue to ask him where the promised wall is? When there is no fucking wall? And there never WAS going to be a fucking wall? We’ll see.

Then again, maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe the election of a dangerously authoritarian, xenophobic ignoramus will inspire the corporatized, establishment mainstream media to develop a spine, realizing that they may represent the last bulwark keeping what remains of our Republic from sliding into a proto-fascist dictatorship, even if it means potentially putting their careers on the line.

I certainly DO hope they prove me wrong. But I wouldn’t bet on it.