Mediaboss Marketing

For more than a half century, the Philadelphia TV station now branded as PHL17 was the place where baby boomer kids flipped on the Wee Willie Webber Colorful Cartoon Club as soon as they got home from school, where teens grooved to Dancin on Air in the go-go 1980s, and where Schmitty, Lefty and the rest of their Phillies squad marched toward their first world championship in the long hot summer of 1980.

But if a planned sale of the station along with dozens of other TV outlets from coast-to-coast to the Sinclair Broadcast Group wins approval from federal regulators, PHL17 may become the go-to place on your local remote for pro-government curve balls from the Terrorism Alert Desk and a blast of commentaries dancin on rhetorical hot air in support of President Trump during the run-up to the 2020 election.

STEVE RUARK / AP

Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc.s headquarters in Hunt Valley, Md. STEVE RUARK / AP

Experts caution that Sinclairs ultimate plan for the Philadelphia station is a little unclear because unlike most of the 42 stations in 33 key markets that it seeks to acquire in its pending deal to buy Tribune Media PHL17 doesnt currently have its own in-house-produced nightly newscast where Sinclair could plant its conservative propaganda flag. But they still express alarm about the bigger national picture less local journalism and less choice for viewers, with federal government in the process of twisting the licensing rules in a way to benefit a media company that so enthusiastically cheerleads for the head of that government, Trump.

Craig Aaron, the president and CEO of Free Press, an advocacy group that fights against media consolidation, said the massive Sinclair deal puts too much media power in the hands of one company, especially because the firms business model lays off independent journalists covering local stories, like corruption in City Hall, and instead orders stations to run commentaries from a handful of right-wing national pundits who push pro-GOP and increasingly, pro-Trump propaganda. We need competent sources of local news and the Sinclair model is to eliminate them.

Sinclairs $3.9 million push into untapped local markets may be the last puzzle piece in the move that more than anything else defines Donald Trumps America. Success will create a seamless media bubble for the presidents rabid base, from the blather of Fox & Friends when they turn on their TV in the morning to right-wing talk radio as they drive to the supermarket to the anti-liberal diatribes, some of it fake news or even manufactured on Russian content farms, in their Facebook feed, now bolstered by Trump-boosting commentaries from the presidents former aide Boris Epshteyn on their local Sinclair-owned TV news. All while the president brands the traditional news media as enemies of the American people.

Whats revealing about this scheme is that the Sinclair acquisitions of local TV outlets are heavily focused in the presidential swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and, of course, Pennsylvania where the Trump-lovin broadcaster would own a station in every key media market after gaining PHL17 and Fox43 in Harrisburg. Thats a huge two-fer for Sinclair, since in addition to its unbroken web of pro-Trump agitprop. the company will reaps hundreds of millions of dollars from battleground-state political spending. Thats your modern kleptocracy at work.

As Maryland-based Sinclair has grown its coast-to-coast reach, its also found with too little fanfare new and creative ways to boost its far-right agenda, dating back to the early 2000s when its ABC affiliates wouldnt air a Nightline episode simply listing the names of American troops whod died in Iraq, an act apparently seen at Sinclair HQ as anti-war propaganda. Its affiliates did, however, run on the eve of the 2004 a documentary called Stolen Valor that slammed the Vietnam War-era record of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a piece heavily promoted by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. They also broadcast a mix of news pieces and a dishonest infomerical that slammed Barack Obama during his presidency, most under the banner of must-run commentaries.

That trend has only increased in the Trump Era, with the hiring of Epshteyn, who worked on the 2016 campaign and for a short time in the White House, and whose Trump-talking-point commentaries must run a whopping nine times a week. Viewers who switch on their local news on a day when things arent going well for the Trump White House wont get that story but instead get a Terrorism Desk Alert on the fighting in Syria or blasting the Muslim treatment of women. Meanwhile, its been reported that Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner cut a deal giving Sinclair access to Trump in return for favorable coverage.

I realize that a lot of you are saying at this pointso what? The 1st Amendment not only permits but implicitly encourages an opinionated media, and liberals certainly have their own outlets, like MSNBCs The Rachel Maddow Show, to name just one. Theres nothing inherently wrong with conservative commentary on your high-def screen. But what Sinclair and its allies in the Trump administration are seeking to pull with this Tribune acquisition is radically different upending the once-cherished ideal of diverse, locally based voices, replacing that quaint vision with a large centralized media monopoly. And they are deliberately gaming the federal licensing rules to get there.

As investigative journalists from the New York Times reported this week, Sinclairs chairman David Smith met with the FCC commissioner whom Trump was naming as its chairman, Ajit Pai, on the day before Trumps inauguration to map out the plan for radical deregulation that the FCC has largely carried out since January lifting the cap on how many stations a broadcaster like Sinclair can own, as well as relaxing other restrictions in ways that would benefit the Trump-friendly companys bottom line.

Its not front-page news not surprising in a time of nuclear bluster and white-supremacist marches through American cities but the average citizens should still be alarmed. For one thing, all the must-run pro-Trump blather emerging from Sinclairs offices kills any chance for real journalism on local issues. Hannah Jane Sassaman, policy director for the Philadelphia-based Media Mobilizing Project, told me that activists in Harrisburg have been pleased with the coverage that Fox43 gives to immigrant-rights issues and are alarmed that such reports might dry up under Sinclair. A conservative media that uses dog whistles, Sassaman said, is being expanded to our broadcast news outlets that should be terrifying.

That said, the picture in Philadelphia is fuzzy. Some analysts have wondered if Sinclair ultimately aims to flip PHL17 to another buyer. The channels current line-up, with a short morning news show and a 10 p.m. newscast produced by ABC 6/WPVI Action News, doesnt offer at the moment the opportunities for running conservative commentary that exist at other stations that its buying. But that could change quickly if the sale goes through.

Regardless of what happens on the local dial, Sassaman is right that the prospects for U.S. democracy are terrifying. One of the gateway drugs for authoritarian rule is state control of the mass media. If Americans in key battleground states start getting spoon-fed pro-White House propaganda in between their local weather and the 76ers highlights, were much farther down that rocky road than we ever want to be.

The good news is that while the path for FCC approval of the Sinclair-Tribune deal appears to be well-greased, the sale is still not final. Both Sassaman and Aaron from Free Press which has challenged the sale on both the legal and regulatory front urged citizens to contact the FCC and register their objection. They also recommended calling public officials, from Mayor Kenney to members of Congress, to urge public hearings or at least strong condemnations. Its worth a shot, because the stakes are so high. Like a batter facing a Steve Carlton fastball from the glory days of Sunday afternoon baseball on Channel 17, this dangerous scheme needs to be struck out.

Published: August 15, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: August 15, 2017 2:05 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

See more here:
Why the looming sale of PHL17 is a threat to democracy - Philly.com

What is the single most important issue before us?

To ask the question is either to invite scoffing (how can any one issue be described in this way?) or to call forth a cacophony of replies. For starters: the North Korean confrontation, globalization, climate change, rising inequality, terrorism or the ongoing troubles in the Middle East.

But at the risk of being accused of cultural imperialism, I'd argue that the challenge to liberal democracy is far and away the most consequential question facing the world. If liberal democracy does not survive and thrive, every other problem we face becomes much more difficult.

The very phrase "liberal democracy" is vexed. In the United States, "liberal" is associated with a New Dealish center-left. Elsewhere, particularly in Europe, it often implies minimal governmental interference with the workings of capitalism.

But liberal democracy is, in principle, a simple if also profound idea: a belief in governments created through free elections and universal suffrage; an independent judiciary; and guarantees of the freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and press. Some of my more libertarian-leaning friends and in our shared desire to defend liberal democracy, we are friends would define it as excluding various forms of regulation and redistribution.

I'd agree with them that the right to private property is a characteristic of liberal societies but insist that there is also an important place for social insurance, government provision of various services (education and health care among them) and rules protecting workers, consumers and the environment. Indeed, the vast inequalities that capitalism can produce when unchecked typically undermine liberal democracy, and are doing so now.

For those who claim that liberal democracy is simply a Western idea, consider that India is the world's largest democracy and that many nations in Africa, Latin America and other parts of Asia are working democracies or struggling for democratic rights.

Liberal democracy is essential for solving every other problem because it assumes that history is open and that free electorates can change their minds and their governments. Oppressed groups have a right to agitate and organize against injustices, and new ways of reforming society are given room to emerge.

But is there a crisis of liberal democracy? We could argue for days over whether the word "crisis" is appropriate, which is why I like the more modest title of Financial Times columnist Edward Luce's compelling book published earlier this year, "The Retreat of Western Liberalism." Crisis or not, liberal democracy is in trouble partly because, in the years after World War II, liberal democrats became complacent.

Luce affectingly describes the elation he felt when he and a group of fellow students raced to Berlin as the Wall was coming down: "Borders were opening up. Global horizons beckoned. ... Though still alive, history was smiling."

But history is starting to scowl as once-solid democracies (Hungary, Poland and Turkey, along with many outside Europe) move in an autocratic direction. China, meanwhile, offers a path to development and growth that involves neither freedom nor democracy.

Even where liberal democracy has its strongest foundations, authoritarian brands of populism have gained ground by exploiting widespread discontent. Luce is especially powerful when taking to task those at the global economy's commanding heights for failing to address the stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes. "The world's elites have helped to provoke what they feared: a populist uprising against the world economy."

In 2017, there has been something of a liberal democratic comeback in France, the Netherlands and, it would appear from the polls, Germany. Movements of the far right are (at least for now) receding. My Washington Post colleague Fred Hiatt recently pointed to "the Trump boomerang effect" as other nations learn from the mistake the United States made in November 2016.

And we should not petrify ourselves with too many comparisons between our time and the 1930s. On the eve of World War II, as the historian Ian Kershaw reminds us in "To Hell and Back," his monumental history of Europe from 1914 to 1949, three-fifths of Europeans lived under authoritarian regimes a calculation that does not even include Stalin's Soviet Union.

We are far from such a catastrophe, but I'm grateful to Luce and others for warning us not to take liberal democracy for granted. When liberal democrats become arrogant and forget that governments have an obligation to create the circumstances for widespread well-being, autocrats will always be there offering security and prosperity in exchange for less freedom. Liberal democracy must be defended. It must also deliver the goods.

E.J. Dionne Jr. is a columnist for The Washington Post.ejdionne@washpost.comand@EJDionne

The rest is here:
EJ Dionne Jr.: Standing up for liberal democracy - Madison.com

Its the most cynical political game in a cynical town, calculated to deprive New York voters of what little democracy theyre allowed to participate in.

Veteran Assemblyman Herman Denny Farrell reportedly plans to be the latest machine politician to step down at just the right time to prevent voters from picking his successor.

Leave office before your term expires, but after the filing date for the Democratic primary, and youve assured that county party leaders, not voters, get to pick the next candidate. And that candidate almost always is the one the outgoing legislator wants.

Weve seen it all before, but this year in particular has produced a bumper crop of similar travesties.

State Sen. Daniel Squadron (D-Queens) last week announced he was quitting because of his frustration with Democratic divisions in Albany.

Fair enough. Yet somehow his frustration kicked in only after it was too late for anyone else to qualify for a special election.

Last month, City Councilman David Greenfield (D-Bklyn) announced his resignation to head the scandal-scarred Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty also too late for any other candidates. He then tapped an ally (who was already running in a different district!) to succeed him.

Just two years ago, then-Bronx DA Robert Johnson abruptly resigned in a squalid deal engineered by current Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie that gave Johnson a state Supreme Court judgeship and replaced him with the machines hand-picked choice, Darcel Clark.

And people wonder why New Yorkers are so cynical. The citys heavy Democratic tilt has deprived most general elections of any meaning, and now the bosses are increasingly shutting voters out of primaries, too.

Greenfield, for one, makes no apologies for gaming the system. If you dont like the rules, he says, change them.

Instead of pushing arcane fixes to the campaign-finance laws, self-proclaimed reformers ought to take up that challenge or stop pretending they really want to clean up politics.

Link:
By dodging primaries, New York pols are killing democracy - New York Post

The LATINNO Project aims at making democratic innovations measurable and comparable, allowing for assessments of their actual role and impact on democracy in Latin America. Espaol

Image: LATINNO Project. All rights reserved.

Latin Americas countries have been consistently scoring badly in assessments of quality of democracy. Many years of authoritarianism and political instability have led citizens to distrust their institutions and have made scholars doubt democracys ability to reinvent itself. The international scholarship and the media have long echoed what opinion polls and democracy indexes have confirmed: democracies in Latin America have been unable to become fully consolidated because they are flawed by clientelism, corruption, and populism, not to mention poverty, crime and inflation.

This shadowed scenario and the pessimism associated with it have, however, for a long time hindered that constructive questions were asked and that their answers were sought in the right places. How can political trust be rebuilt? How does one strengthen democratic institutions after long periods of authoritarian rule? How can governments become more accountable and responsive in countries with long traditions of political instability? How can the rule of law be enforced where crime and corruption are permanent problems? How can democracy ensure political inclusion and social equality in countries where poverty and hunger are still a reality?

One may never have new and different answers to these questions if one keeps looking for democracy in the same places and if one insists on labelling only a limited set of institutions as democratic, which no longer effectively represent citizens nor truly translate their will. Where elections are perceived as a civic burden, parliaments are unable to express citizens voices and parties fail to connect government and society it is necessary to rethink and reform these institutions. Moreover, it is necessary to create new institutions and search for answers in new places. It is necessary to innovate.

When one looks beyond the usual places, one will see that state and civil society in Latin America have found common spaces of social and political experimentation, thus defying democracies of a mere representative character. Be it through joint work or independently, but frequently converging, State and Society have begun to design and create new forms of doing politics, in which citizens play a central role in the reconstruction of democracies and their institutions. Citizens are involved in co-government processes and move on to participate in agenda setting, formulating, implementing and evaluating public policies.

State and civil society in Latin America have found common spaces of social and political experimentation.

These processes of political experimentation have increasingly developed since the 1990s in many countries in the region, in some of them following up democratic transitions. Either by turning to the left or staying within the right side of the political spectrum, many Latin-American governments, both at the local and national level, have allowed for inner transformations in their institutions so as to include citizen participation or create new institutional designs in which citizens are the protagonists. These institutional changes or the creation of new institutions, these spaces and political practices that engage citizens in the construction of democracy, are named democratic innovations.

However, enthusiasm regarding innovations, which has become a trendy word in Latin America, should not feed an excessive optimism. The expansion of citizen participation is a positive step in itself, but it is necessary to further question: which effect have these initiatives had upon the qualities of democracy? How do these new institutional designs coexist with or even expand representative democracy? How does innovation affect representation? Which institutional designs allow for a broader and more effective participation of Latin-American citizens in processes of formulation and implementation of public policies? How can innovations be replicated in different countries? And why have some cases succeeded while others have failed?

The LATINNO Innovations for Democracy in Latin America Project, based at the Democracy and Democratization Department of the WZB Berlin Social Science Center, aims precisely at offering answers to such questions. It has collected and assessed 2400 different cases of democratic innovations implemented in 18 countries of Latin America from 1990 to 2016. The LATINNO Project aims at making democratic innovations measurable and comparable, allowing for assessments of their actual role and impact on democracy in Latin America. This broad compilation of data which can be consulted in English, Spanish and Portuguese at the web platform http://www.latinno.net does not only enable academics to gain access to a wide empirical basis for establishing and revisiting existing theoretical frameworks on participation and democracy in Latin America, but also allows activists, politicians, organized civil society and international organizations to evaluate and to compare different innovations in the region, as well as to improve and replicate them.

It is expected, moreover, that the 2,400 cases of political experimentation unveiled in two and a half years of research show that democracy in Latin America is not exhausted in traditional institutions of representation and participation, such as parliaments and elections. Above all, this rich collection of new forms of participation and representation should finally enable new institutions and policy practices to be evaluated and compared, in order to be included in traditional national and international indicators of the quality of democracy. Only in this way can a comprehensive perspective on democracy in Latin America be known and effectively evaluated.

However, enthusiasm regarding innovations, which has become a trendy word in Latin America, should not feed an excessive optimism.

Preliminary results of the LATINNO Project show, among other things, that since the 1990s and especially since the 2000s democratic innovations have been consistently increasing in the region. Countries as different as Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru have each over a hundred of active new institutional designs for citizen participation and have engaged millions of people. Although such increase is well perceptible within countries that took the left turn, the political orientation of parties is not a condition to the creation of innovations: both left-leaning and right-leaning parties have implemented new spaces and mechanisms of citizen participation. These take place not only at the local level but also and especially at the national level. Although the State plays a major role in their implementation, civil society organizations have been increasingly expanding their chances to have their initiatives implemented, especially when they associate to the State in creating new forms and spaces for political participation.

The LATINNO data also shows that participation is open to individual citizens and groups, which only in a smaller number of cases need to join a civil society organization or to expect an invitation from the government in order to take part in the new spaces. Citizens participate in diverse ways in these new institutions, but most and foremost through deliberation. This indicates that voicing preferences and debating alternatives may become a usual way of doing politics in Latin America, and deliberation may eventually play a role as important as casting a vote in the ballot box.

Latin America has always been a region of deep contradictions. It should not be a surprise that such intense democratic experimentation takes place in countries where democracy seems so fragile and political institutions so unstable. Innovation requires adaptation and transformation, and in this regard instability and malleability may turn out to be sources of deeper institutional changes. Innovation also requires discontinuity something that the changing political tides in the region will allow democracy to test for itself in the coming years.

Read more:
Innovating Democracy in Latin America - Open Democracy

(Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

Its a slightly comical transportation system in the bowels of the U.S. Capitol that few Americans know exists: the Senate subway system. Not subway like Metro but two sets of tracks that carry underground trams ferrying lawmakers from Senate chambers to their office buildings, less than a third of a mile away.

And its the unlikely backdrop to the tumultuous Capitol Hill legislative goings-on of the past seven months.

The subway and its adjoining no-frills, fluorescent-lit station platform have long been a gathering place for the swarm of Capitol Hill journalists, aides and lobbyists who aim to pounce on senators as they disembark from trams or hitch a ride in the same car as a fellow lawmaker, hoping to bend an ear for the 90-second ride from one station to another.

But at a time when Congress has all but abandoned regular order with legislation crafted in secret, public hearings placed on the back burner and pivotal actions determined by razor-thin vote margins the transit-station jockeying has taken on new levels of intensity and importance.

Stand at the bank of trains long enough and youll get a momentary reading on the state of American politics: Theres former House speaker Newt Gingrich, setting off a flurry of speculative tweets when hes spotted disembarking from a train to the Capitol. Theres Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), jumping over the live tracks to ditch a gaggle of reporters seeking details on the Affordable Care Act repeal vote.

There are warnings from the Senate Media Gallery that the subway platforms are too crowded with the hoards of journalists seeking reactions to President Trumps latest tweets. A lobbyist, waiting for one of the trains, turns to a slightly bewildered-looking police officer.

Is it me, she says, or are things really crazy here today?

And there, in the middle of the night, minutes before a climactic vote on the repeal of Obamacare, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has a heart-to-heart with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) about his upcoming vote as they make their way from the Russell Senate Office Building to the Senate chambers, a conversation so meaningful that Murphy later said he plans to share it with his grandchildren.

The subway tunnels snaking underneath the Capitol have always been busy, said Donald A. Ritchie, the Senate historian emeritus. But of late, the system has reached new levels of stardom.

Its a little like Times Square down there now, Ritchie said.

[Inside the heaving, jostling Capitol media mob: We are one tripped senator away from disaster.]

The feverish atmosphere may be new, but the underlying infrastructure is not. The need to build an underground Capitol transportation network came more than 100 years ago, when new office buildings were being built beside the Capitol to meet the demands of lawmakers seeking their own office space. To win over the senators miffed at the prospect of exile in an adjacent building, architects came up with a compromise: The government would build a transportation system to ferry lawmakers back and forth to the Senate for casting votes, a chore that sometimes takes place several times per day.

The tunnel to the offices first featured electric Studebaker automobiles; later, officials switched to trains on tracks out of concern that a lawmaker would one day get mowed over by a careering car.

After multiple rounds of expansions and upgrades, there are now two types of trains on the Senate side: an open-air tram to the Russell building driven by operators who ping-pong back-and-forth all day, and a Disneyland-style driverless train that runs from the Capitol to the Dirksen and Hart office buildings.

Back when the tunnels were first built, such an investment in infrastructure for a rarefied few seemed excessive.

And now, to many, it still seems like an excessive expense. But Ritchie defended the system.

If the Capitol had been designed as a 60-story building, youd have a bank of elevators and you wouldnt be surprised, he said.

[Some senators need a lift, others use the elevator to go bunning for cover]

Many of the design changes over the years have reflected shifts in Congresss cultural sensibilities. After Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) joined the Senate 1949, Plexiglass shields were installed on the open-air trains. (Gusts from the 15-mph train rides mussed her hair to the point that she sat with her head ducked low in the cab.)

And the newer set of cars were designed for accessibility, which helped accommodate lawmakers such as former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a Vietnam War veteran who had lost both legs and his right forearm and used a wheelchair during six years in the Senate.

Some politicians refusal to use the subway served as a political message. Former senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) refused to take the train in a protest against government waste and forbid his staff from riding too. Hard-charging former senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) were both known for skipping the trains to power-walk through the adjacent tunnel walkways.

And occasionally, the Senate subway has been a place of confrontation. In 1950, as Smith prepared to give a speech on the growing risks that McCarthyism posed to freedom of speech, she was approached by none other than Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) as she boarded the train to the Capitol.

Margaret, you look very serious, Smith later recalled McCarthy saying. Are you going to make a speech?

Yes, she responded, and you will not like it.

According to Smith, McCarthy used the rest of the subway ride to make threatening remarks in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to intimidate her from making the speech.

[The U.S. Capitols shadow army of nighttime workers]

But for the most part, the subway is a place of bipartisan goodwill.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) recalled that his first meeting with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) took place on a train. In his memoir, Franken called the transit run-in a real meet-cute Grassleys opening line: You look just like you look on TV! and the subway-train bonding session laid the groundwork for extensive legislative co-sponsorship.

Rushing out of the Capitol and back to his office last month, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) said that hed occasionally time his subway ride strategically to catch a colleague and talk policy. Once, he said, he used the 90 seconds on the subway to persuade the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to move a federal judge.

Weve gotten some deals done on the train, Cardin said. I mean, youre looking for somebody, and you know you have a captured audience for about a minute. For the Senate, thats a long time.

And Ritchie, the historian, has caught more than one heartwarming senatorial moment inside a packed Capitol Hill train. One time, he said, he stepped into a subway car and encountered a group of senators on their way to vote on a bill doomed to fail that would have ceded the District of Columbia to Maryland.

One lawmaker turned to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and quipped: Bernie, why doesnt Vermont take the District?

Oh no, were planning to annex Quebec, Sanders shot back, according to Ritchie.

The banter proceeded among the senators, with more and more preposterous proposals, until Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) piped up.

Whatever you do, Cochran said, chuckling, dont secede. We tried it, and it doesnt work.

That type of idle joking and banter, Ritchie said, is an important part of fostering civility across the political aisle.

The real problem is that theres so little social time between them, outside of the legislative process, Ritchie said. Those few 90 seconds on the trains may be one of the very few off-camera moments they have when they can actually joke with each other. You have to make the most of that time.

Those interactions, however, might be growing increasingly rare. Bipartisanship in Congress is arguably at an all-time low. The senatorial gentility of yore has, at times, given way to the rancor and harsh words of the Twitter age.

And then, theres the most troublesome shift of all: the advent of the Fitbit.

As Cardin power-walked down the walkway next to the Dirksen-Hart subway line, he admitted that he hardly ever rides the train anymore.

The senator lifted his hand and pointed to the slim black band on his wrist.

I gotta get my steps in, he said, as another train zoomed by.

[Aug. 1994: Is the Senate subway going down the tubes?]

Read more:
The Senate subway: The new epicenter of American democracy? - Washington Post