Dopamine Spike: Populist Media

There is a structural limit to populist dynamics that is often missed. Populist themes require an antithesis to remain coherent. Without an opposing force to push against, they do not stabilise or mature; they turn inward. Like fascism in its later stages, the movement begins to consume its own distinctions, purging nuance, then difference, then finally itself. What initially looks like unity hardens into brittleness, because identity has been built from negation rather than relation.

This sits on a familiar edge of chaos. The same narrow band where conflict becomes productive for attention is also where systems begin to disassemble themselves. It is the same symmetrical configuration we see in the rhetoric of war, where escalation generates political capital precisely because it accelerates meaning, urgency, and allegiance. That acceleration feels decisive, but it is metabolically expensive. The system burns coherence faster than it can regenerate it, mistaking motion for direction and intensity for purpose.

Media ecosystems oriented around conflict are not exempt from this dynamic. In the long run, they risk eroding their own commercial and cultural viability, drifting toward a role that resembles a permanent spokesperson for insecurity rather than a participant in a shared public language. As in the United States, the drive to monetise volatility can end up consuming the symbolic, material, and institutional continuity on which those organisations depend. This is rarely framed as a systemic risk, but it is one. The centre of the communicative zeitgeist is increasingly drawn to superficiality and performative dissent, and while analysis can describe this pattern with clarity, description alone will not arrest it.

—

The extent to which political parties are shaped simply by existing within, and responding to, contemporary media systems remains poorly understood, yet its effects are profound. That influence is so pervasive and power-laden that parties are largely unable, and perhaps unwilling, to recognise it, even as it drives patterns of behaviour that are ultimately self-destructive both for the parties themselves and for the communications systems within which meaningful political dialogue must exist and persist.