Mediaboss Marketing

As it rounds the corner toward next months milestone 300th issue, Heavy Metal magazine for decades the go-to destination for some of fans edgiest and wildest comic book rides closed ranks at Comic-Con@Home to take a look at how the seminal magazine will carry the torch in the years to come.

Coming together for a birds-eye view of the magazines place in a changing world, CEO Matthew Medney emceed an online chat with partner, publisher, and creative chief David Erwin, along with Dylan Sprouse (Sun Eater), George C. Romero (The Rise, Cold Dead War), Brendan Columbus (Savage Circus), and Dan Fogler (Fishkill, Brooklyn Gladiator, Moon Lake) all for a deep talk that veered hilariously between big-picture issues like censorship and the magazines punk-rock soul; and silly diversions (like Columbus fascination with man-eating giraffes).

First things first: everyone in the Heavy Metal family planted their flag as die-hard lovers of artistic freedom and following their creative impulses to the ends of the Earth even as the larger creative world, in Erwins word, grows more vanilla and risk-averse. Were the Ben & Jerrys, he joked, noting that his background with big-budget DC productions like Christopher Nolans Batman movies taught him the value of system-bucking artists, toiling away on far less bankable comic book ideas.

This is what I think makes Heavy Metal exciting, he explained bringing in these different personalities and taking risks and taking chances.

Not everything needs to be for everyone, Medney agreed. That idea thats kind of infected our society, that everything should be palatable for everyone, is kind of as dangerous as misinformation.

Heavy Metal was born in an era of immense social and artistic ferment, and thats exactly what Romero who said he tried for years to get his famous, zombie film-pioneering father to work with the magazine back when horror and sci-fi didnt often cross paths said he values about being a part of it.

Growing up, Romerosaid, the magazine inspired him with its willingness to go against the cultural grain and engage all kinds of artistic visions. It was an opportunity for writers to put characters into world views that everybody, kids and grown ups, could identify with, he said. By putting messaging into characters that I think we looked to almost as role models growing up, one way or another, it formed our ability as a generation to have what our parents mightve called'dangerous' thoughts

What could be more dangerous than ravenous giraffes? Everyone roasted Columbus for the insane sights that await readers of Savage Circus when HM Issue #300 arrives next month. But Columbus confessed he wasnt trying to challenge prevailing values when he came up with the idea nope; he simply wanted to have a comic where crazy, zany stuff would be the rule, rather than the exception.

I wanted to see people get torn apart by animals, he joked. Thats the why. When I opened a comic book as a kid, it was to see the things [adults didnt want you to see] so I made Savage Circus a throwback to sort of the emotional stories of the 80s for fans of all the hard-edged violence and pulpy humor the eras creators playfully engaged.

Fogler said thats the idea he was going for with Moon Lake, the Hitchcock on acid 2010 graphic novel anthology that put the current Walking Dead star on comic book fans radar. Moon Lake is an homage to everything I was not supposed to see as a kid; everything I stayed up late to watch, he said, adding that Heavy Metals 300th issue marks an important testimony to the unfettered artistic spirit.

History is repeating itself man; it feels like the 60s all over again, and Heavy Metal was birthed out of that, he reflected. What a perfect voice. [The magazine] is not going to censor us and theres so much censoring going on right now.

Featuring an English-language debut of a Moebius short story, with work from Medney, Erwin, Sprouse, Columbus, Richard Corben, Liberatore, Vaughan Bode, Stephanie Phillips, Justin Jordan, Blake Northcott, and more, Issue #300 of Heavy Metal is set to arrive on Aug. 19.

Click here for SYFY WIRE's full coverage of Comic-Con@Home 2020.

Go here to read the rest:
Zombies, censorship, & killer giraffes: Heavy Metal reflects on making it to issue #300 - SYFY WIRE

Nearly athird (32%) of employed Americans say they personally are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known. These results are particularly notable given that most personal campaign contributions to political candidates are public knowledge and can easily be found online.

And its not just one side of the political spectrum: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory. This suggests that its not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse. Instead these results are more consistent with a walking on eggshells thesis that people increasingly fear awide range of political views could offend others or could negatively impact themselves.

These concerns are also crosspartisan, although more Republicans are worried: 28% of Democrats, 31% of independents, and 38% of Republicans are worried about how their political opinions could impact their career trajectories.

Americans with diverse backgrounds share this concern that their employment could be adversely affected if their political views were discovered: 38% of Hispanic Americans, 22% of African Americans, 31% of White Americans, 35% of men, 27% of women, 36% of households earning less than $20,000 ayear, and 33% of households earning more than $100,000 ayear agree.

Some are more worried about losing their jobs or missing out on job opportunities because of political views. Those with the highest levels of education are most concerned. Almost half (44%) of Americans with postgraduate degrees say they are worried their careers could be harmed if others discovered their political opinions, compared to 34% of college graduates, 28% of those with some college experience, and 25% of high school graduates

Go here to see the original:
Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They're Afraid to Share - Cato Institute

Thursday, 23 July 2020, 11:06 amArticle: Eric Zuesse

Eric Zuesse,originally posted at StrategicCulture

Back in July of 2016, I did a two-partarticle, American Samizdat Publication Forbidden in U.S., which went down therabbit-hole of news-suppression (censorship) in the UnitedStates but left, for the future, a more detailed descriptionof the money-track back to the individuals who control thatcensorship in serving the economic interests of the samebillionaires who control both the Democratic NationalCommittee and the Republican National Committee both ofAmericas two national political Parties (and they thusdetermined, forexample, in the Democratic Party, that Bernie Sanders wouldnever get that Partys Presidential nomination, though hehad the highest approval-rating of any politician in thecountry, and far higher than Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump,and Joe Biden ever had yet the billionaires fooledthe majority of Democratic Party primary voters to thinkthat he was too radical to be able to beat Trump, eventhough, in all polled hypothetical matchups against Trump,Sanders beat Trump by far higher margins thanClinton did, and basicallyequal to whatBiden did, so the electability issue wasfabricated by the billionaires press, in order to get acandidate who was acceptable to the billionaires tobe running against Trump).

A dictatorship functions bynews-suppression and other forms of censorship, even morethan it does by its own lying. It functions by deceit, butthe main way it deceives is by prohibiting the truth to bepublished on any of the billionaires (or other rulinggroups) media including all of the media that havelarge audiences.

News-suppression used to becontrolled by the CIAs OperationMockingbird, in which the owners andtop executives of the major news-media took theCIAs orders and trusted it to represent in the mostreliable way the collective interests of Americaswealthiest persons, so as to weaken those individualsforeign economic competitors. However, gradually, after the1976 Frank-Church-led U.S. Senate hearings into the CIAsdeceptions of the American public, Americas wealthiest the same people whom Wall Street firms also represent relied increasingly upon the nonprofits (foundationsetc.) that they controlled, in order to transfer some ofthis censorship-function over to those nonprofits privatize the censorship function. It was done so that thesame people who controlled the U.S. Government would be ableto continue controlling it and would allow into thebillionaire class new members (mainly technocrats) of thenations aristocracy. This would enhance the U.S.aristocracys collective control over the U.S. Government.There is less need, than before, for the CIA to do thecensoring. (So: the group collectively also constitutesits own gatekeepers. They dont rely onlyupon market-forces in order to determine who is us,and who is them, but any misbehaving member willincreasingly become treated as being one ofthem, and this will be reflected in the groupsnews-media. Its an oligarchy here, and not only anaristocracy. It is an exclusionary aristocracy.)

HughWilfords 2008 THEMIGHTY WURLITZER: How the CIA Played Americadescribed how, starting in the late 1960s, Americassuper-rich began transferring (privatizing) some of theircensorship-functions away from the Government, and intotheir own controlled news-media andnonprofits.

As the former Washington Postreporter Carl Bernstein headlined on 20 October 1977, THECIA AND THE MEDIA, in the wake of the ChurchCommittees report, and described that Senate reportscontext:

During the 1976 investigation of the CIAby the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by SenatorFrank Church, the dimensions of the Agencys involvementwith the press became apparent to several members of thepanel, as well as to two or three investigators on thestaff. But top officials of the CIA, including formerdirectors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded thecommittee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and todeliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activitiesin its final report. The multivolume report contains ninepages in which the use of journalists is discussed indeliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makesno mention of the actual number of journalists who undertookcovert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describethe role played by newspaper and broadcast executives incooperating with the Agency.

Ever since that time,the CIAs direct control over U.S. media has eroded andbecome privatized largely into the billionairesnonprofits, even while the CIAscontrol over the media in U.S.-allied foreignaristocracies has continued unabated, so as to extendyet further the American empire.

At the top in Americaare the billionaires who donate the most to politicians, andwhose tax-exempt foundations collectively carry out whatused to be the CIAs Operation Mockingbird thecensorship-function.

Two organizations especiallyshould be cited here as leaders of todays Americanbillionaire-class and privatized censorship operations, andany reader here should keep in mind that the largest fundersof these two organizations are themselves only hints at thebillionaires who control each one of them, and, furthermore,since these are only two such organizations, there might beother similar organizations that, perhaps in other ways, areequally important as these two determiners of the news thatthe vast majority of the U.S. public are, and will be,blocked from seeing and hearing (such as this).

Firstis a crucial operation that serves the Democratic NationalCommittee, the DNC (for links to sources, click onto theURL):

https://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

WhatWe Do

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)is a nationally recognized watchdog that leads in-depth,award-winning investigations into the corruption thatundermines our democracy, environment, and economicprosperity.

The Koch brothers and their networkof billionaires are operating with a reach and resourcesthat exceed those of political parties and they are usingthat power to erode the integrity of our elections and saptaxpayer dollars away from investments in publicinfrastructure, education, and healthcare to benefit narrowspecial interests and globalcorporations.

CMDs investigations, publicinformation requests, and lawsuits have ignited nationalconversations on money in politics and the distortion ofU.S. law and democracy at every level of government andin every region of the country. We believe in the publicsright to know how government operates and how corporationsinfluence our democracy and the true motivations fortheir actions. When necessary, CMD litigates to defend thatright and ensure those in power follow thelaw.

Since CMD first exposed ALEC in 2011, morethan 100 corporations have dropped ALEC, including Verizon,Ford, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, General Electric, and Google. Asa result of that ongoing investigation and other reporting,CMD is often contacted by whistleblowers wanting to make adifference. CMD has also researched the array of groups thatare part of ALEC, including numerous Koch-funded entitiesand national and state think tanks that are affiliatedwith the State Policy Network.

CMD files morethan 1,000 public information requests each year. Thisinvestigative watchdog work has broken through in thenational debate. For example, CMD exposed EPA AdministratorScott Pruitt's deep ties to the fossil fuel industry andrevealed lobbyist efforts to hide Chamber of Commercemembers overwhelming support for raising the minimum wageand providing paid sick leave, among other groundbreakinginvestigations.

CMDs work has been featuredin the New York Times, Washington Post, POLITICO, theGuardian, Bloomberg, WIRED, Vice, The Atlantic and Buzzfeedas well as on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, The DailyShow, and Last Week with John Oliver. We also partner withinvestigative writers at The Intercept and ProPublica topublish new reports and findings.

The fightto keep our democracy from becoming a plutocracy doesn'thave a scrappier warrior than the Center for Media andDemocracy. Bill Moyers

CMD's scrappycrew tracks the Koch Machine every day, shines a light oncorruption in our democracy, and takes politicians to courtwhen they try to hide their special-interest ties from thepublic. Robert Reich

...watchdoggroup that studie[s] the mechanics of politicalmanipulation." -- Jane Mayer, DarkMoney

[CMD's] requests are of federalimportance. -- Sens. Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, Booker,Markey and Duckworth

How We ExposeCorruption

CMD puts a spotlight on hidden andunreported activities, forcing those trying to maneuveraround the edges of laws and ethics out of the shadows. Ouroriginal research digs deeper than the 24-hour news cycle toanswer and understand why and how special interests and darkmoney are reshaping American politics and elections. Ourteam focuses on documenting the facts and revealing theeffects on communities and people in areas ranging fromclimate change and education to workplace standards andfreedom of speech.

CMDs groundbreakingexposs are featured on ExposedbyCMD.org.The watchdog also publishes SourceWatch, an encyclopedia ofcorporations, corporate special interest groups and theirleaders; specialized investigative websites, includingALECExposed.org;and its founding website, PRWatch.org.

Awardsand Honors

CMDs investigations have beenrecognized for their excellence and impact. Our recentawards for investigative journalisminclude:

The Sidney Award from the SidneyHillman Foundation in 2018 for the expos Two Faces ofJanus.

The Izzy I.F. Stone Awardfor outstanding achievement in independent media (sharedwith Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous)from the Park Center for Independent Media.

The Sidney Award (shared jointly with The Nation) from theSidney Hillman Foundation.

The annualProfessional Freedom and Responsibility Award from theAssociation for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Culture and Critical Studies Division, whosepast recipients include Izzy Stone, Bill Moyers, and MollyIvins.

The Benny from the BusinessEthics Network.

CMD has been honored by theMilwaukee Press Club for one of its investigations intoshadowy front groups influencing elections.

CMDs research was featured in Ava DuVernay's film The13th, which was nominated for a 2017 Academy Award forBest Documentary.

Ground-breaking books bywriters from the Center for Media and Democracyinclude:

Deadly Spin: An Insurance CompanyInsider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing HealthCare and Deceiving Americans

Toxic SludgeIs Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public RelationsIndustry

Trust Us, We're Experts: HowIndustry Manipulates Science and Gambles With YourFuture

Mad Cow USA

Weaponsof Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War onIraq

Banana Republicans: How the Right Wingis Turning America Into a One-party State

The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess inIraq

Governance

CMD was founded in1993 by John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. In March 2018,Arn Pearson became CMDs Executive Director, succeedingLisa Graves, who served as executive director from 2009-2018and currently serves as board President. CMDs teamincludes researchers, data experts, FOIA experts, lawyers,and fact-checkers. CMD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exemptnon-profit.

Board of Directors

Lisa Graves, Board President

DeborahBey

Ellen Braune

CosmoHarrigan

Jan Miyasaki

TedNace

Bo Yerxa

Arn Pearson,Ex-Officio BoardMember

Funding

The followingfoundations have provided at least one grant of $5,000 ormore to support the work of CMD since its inception in 1993.Those listed in bold are recent funders.

American Legacy Foundation

Bauman FamilyFoundation

CarethFoundation

CarolynFoundation

Changing Horizons CharitableTrust

CourtneysFoundation

CS Fund

DeerCreek Foundation

Educational Foundation ofAmerica

EttingerFoundation

Ford Foundation

Foundation for Deep Ecology

Foundation forPolitical Management

FundingExchange

Richard & Rhoda GoldmanFund

Grodzins Fund

HelenaRubinstein Foundation

HKHFoundation

LitowitzFoundation

MarislaFoundation

MostynFoundation

Open SocietyInstitute

Park Foundation

Public Welfare Foundation

ProteusFund

V. Kann RasmussenFoundation

RockefellerAssociates

Rockefeller FamilyFoundation

Rockwood Fund

Stern Family Fund

Schumann Center for Mediaand Democracy

SunlightFoundation

ThresholdFoundation

TidesFoundation

Town CreekFoundation

TurnerFoundation

Wallace GlobalFund

WinslowFoundation

Contributions from individuals andnon-profit organizations are accepted. We accept no grantsfrom government agencies or for-profit corporations, exceptfor CREDO, which makes donations to nonprofits based onvotes by its activists and customers.

CMD doesnot accept funding from for-profit corporations or grantsfrom government agencies. Learn how you can help support andexpand CMD's groundbreaking investigationshere.

Second is a crucial operationthat serves the Republican National Committee, the RNC (forlinks to sources, click onto the URL):

More here:
Who The Democratic And Republican Party Censors Are, For The 'News' You See & Hear - Scoop.co.nz

50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36% of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors; 32% are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions

A new Cato Institute/YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62%of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. This is up from 2017 when 58% agreed with this statement. Majoritiesof Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share.

Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves:58%of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe.

Centrist liberals feel differently, with52%who feel they have to selfcensor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives. This demonstrates that political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank.

Read the full survey report and results here.

Whats changed? In 2017 most centrist liberals felt confident (54%) they could express their views. However today, slightly less than half (48%) feel the same. The share who feel they cannot be open increased 7points from 45% in 2017 to 52% today. In fact, there have been shifts across the board, where more people among all political groups feel they are walking on eggshells.

Although strong liberals are the only group who feel they can say what they believe, the share who feel pressured to selfcensor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020. The share of moderates who selfcensor increased 7points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a7point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Selfcensorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly twothirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and nonreligious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

50% of Staunch Liberals Support the Firing of Trump Donors

Nearly athird (31%) of Americans say theyd support firing abusiness executive who personally donated to Donald Trumps reelection campaign for president. This share rises to 50% among strong liberals who support firing business executives who personally donate to Trump.

36% of Staunch Conservatives Support Firing Biden Donors

The survey finds that cancel culture goes both ways. Nearly aquarter (22%) of Americans support firing abusiness executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bidens campaign. This share rises to 36% among strong conservatives who support firing Biden donors. These results are particularly notable given that most personal campaign contributions to political candidates are public knowledge and can easily be found online.

32% Worry Their Political Views Could Harm Their Employment

Nearly athird (32%) of employed Americans say they are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known. Americans across the political spectrum share these concerns: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates, and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory. This suggests that its not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse. Instead these results are more consistent with a walking on eggshells thesis that people increasingly fear awide range of political views could offend others or negatively impact themselves.

These concerns cut across demographics and partisan lines: 28% of Democrats, 31% of independents, 38% of Republicans, 38% of Hispanic Americans, 22% of African Americans, 31% of White Americans, 35% of men, 27% of women, 36% of households earning less than $20,000 ayear, and 33% of households earning more than $100,000 ayear fear their political opinions could impact their career trajectories.

Read thefull survey report and results here.

The topline questionnaire, crosstabs, full methodology, and analysis of the survey findings can be found here.

Methodology:

The Cato Institute Summer 2020 National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online during July 16, 2020 from anational sample of 2,000 Americans 18years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.36 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

Here is the original post:
New Poll: 62% Say the Political Climate Prevents Them from Sharing Political Views - Cato Institute

Poll finds self-censorship on the rise across political groups. A disturbingly high percentage of people polled earlier this month think private political donations should be grounds for getting fired. The number was especially high among respondents under age 30, with 44 percent of the youngest group saying business leaders who donate to Donald Trump should be fired and 27 percent saying the same for execs who give to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, 62 percent of all respondents said they're reluctant to share their political views for fear of offending othersup four points from when the same question was posed in 2017.

Those are a few of the findings in a new national poll conducted by the Cato Institute and YouGov.

When it comes to free expression, the "fears cross partisan lines," writes Cato Director of Polling Emily Ekins. "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share."

There are some differences of degree. A majority (58 percent) of people who categorized themselves as "very" liberal told pollsters they felt they could express themselves freely, while only 48 percent of "moderate" liberals said the same.

"Political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank," suggests Ekins.

The percentage of respondents who felt they could speak freely was even lower among those who labeled themselves "moderate" (36 percent), "conservative" (23 percent), or "very conservative" (23 percent).

Of course, the poll doesn't tell us how much people's perceptions on this front are true to life and how much they reflect distorted evaluations. Maybe staunch liberals feel they can speak more freely because cultural currents do indeed allow it; maybe they just don't realize when their free expression is offending or alienating people. Maybe it's a little of both, plus a lot of other reasons.

On the conservative side, the strong feeling of having to self-censor is likely somewhat rooted in a media and political culture that thrives on peddling its own marginalization. But there's also statistical evidence that self-identification with conservatism and the Republican Party are on the decline, and no doubt that conservative ideas are sidelined in many elite institutions.

It's also hard to guess what people actually mean about their politics when they describe themselves as stronger or less-strong "liberals" or "conservatives" in an era where these meanings are mutable and often bizarre.

Ekins notes that even strong liberals are less confident in their ability to speak freely in 2020 then they were in 2017: "the share who feel pressured to self-censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020." At the same time,

The share of moderates who self-censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a 7-point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Self-censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two-thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non-religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

Not all self-censorship is bad, of course. There are times and places for restraint. So it's hard to know quite how to interpret the results above.

Alas, another part of the study is much more unambiguously depressing: A large number of people think whether someone is employable ought to be tied to their personal politics.

"Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign," notes Ekins. "Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump's re-election campaign." And:

Support rises among political subgroups. Support increases to 50% of strong liberals who support firing executives who personally donate to Trump. And more than a third (36%) of strong conservatives support firing an executive for donating to Biden's presidential campaign.

Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years olda 20-point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55a 7-point difference.

Respondents also expressed fear that their own political opinions or donations would cost them a job or a career opportunity. "Younger people are also more concerned than older people, irrespective of political viewpoint," notes Ekins.

Examining all Americans under 65, 37% of those under 30 are worried their political opinions could harm their career trajectories, compared to 30% of 3054 year-olds and 24% of 5564 year-olds. But the age gap is more striking taking into account political views.

A slim majority (51%) of Republicans under 30 fear their views could harm their career prospects compared to 39% of 3044 year-olds, 34% of 4554 year-olds, and 28% of 5564 year-old Republicans.

Democrats reflect a similar but less pronounced pattern. A third (33%) of Democrats under 30 worry they have views that could harm their current and future jobs, compared to 27% of 3054 year-olds, and 19% of 5564 year-old Democrats.

You can find the full surveyconducted July 16, 2020, with a national sample of 2,000 American adultshere. The sections on political donations and self-censorship are here. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.36 percentage points.

A couple of (positive) Portland updates:

Twitter is exploring subscription options.

The Malaysian government is backtracking on making people who post videos to their personal social-media accounts get a license.

A new documentary goes inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Read the original post:
Is Giving to Biden or Trump Grounds for Getting Fired? New Poll Finds a Disturbing Number of People Who Think It Should Be - Reason