This story is unavailable.

I don’t want to comment on your particular situation (which I know nothing about), but in general, the problem is not people who are so immersed in confronting the obstacles that they face on a daily basis that they don’t have the time or energy to communicate about these issues publicly. The problem is the people who DO have that time and energy but are doing it irresponsibly.

You wrote:

I suffer from the negative effects of sexism, racism, religious-bias on a regular basis and I need to conserve my energy for dealing with that. I don’t have the luxury of communicating with you in a way that you find acceptable.

I completely understand if someone is so engaged in the daily struggles of their life that they don’t have time to publish eloquent disquisitions chronicling and categorizing the varieties of ills that are afflicting them. These people doing their best to get by and go about their lives in the face of obstacles, however, are not ones who are responsible for creating a cultural climate where we’re having a 24/7 conversation about race and racism and blaming every disparate outcome on racism. The ones creating that climate are irresponsible members of the media writing screeds and misleading reports to drive up controversy and ratings or those people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time than protest, agitate and disrupt the lives of others, without even bothering to develop a nuanced understanding of what it is they’re protesting against.

Take, as an example, the most prominently featured article from the front page of the online version of the New York Times as I’m writing this right now. This is what it looks like:

Look at the misleading impression this is conveying. Those who look at the front page are being fed a story of what they will assume is yet another white cop shooting yet another black man in a long litany of such shootings. It’s only when they click into the story that they see, first, that cops are actually being hurt in this (“About 16 police officers in Charlotte, N.C., were injured when a standoff between law enforcement and demonstrators turned ugly overnight after an officer fatally shot a black man on Tuesday afternoon”), second, if they read significantly down, that the guy who was shot might have had a gun himself, so it’s not yet clear who’s at fault (“Police officials said the officer opened fire because Mr. Scott, who they said was armed with a gun, ‘posed an imminent deadly threat’), and third, if they read WAY down towards the very end, that the officer who did the shooting was actually BLACK (“It identified the officer who fired his weapon as Brentley Vinson, an employee since July 2014. Officer Vinson is black, according to local reports”). In other words, the headline is calculated to inflame racial tensions as much as possible (and drive clicks and the New York Times’ ad revenue, etc.), while all the real information that tells a different story is buried somewhere in the text.

This is The New York Times, not some third-rate rag or some random Joe Schmo who’s just struggling to get by. My point is that if you have the time and energy to communicate about the issues that are going on — and especially if it’s your job — you have a duty to do so thoughtfully and responsibly, and we have the right to expect no less.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.