I have deeply valued my time at The Washington Post. And as I said at the beginning of the recent meeting with our executive editor, I am sorry that some of my public statements have angered Post editors. It is true that I have had past conversations with editors about our social media policies. Typically, I spent those meetings seeking specific understanding of precisely where the lines are. It is clear now that top Post editors are more upset than had previously been made clear. Direct and clear communication, even and perhaps especially in moments of frustration and disagreement, are vital to a productive relationship between reporters and their editors. In the same way I would expect an editor to consult me before affixing a correction to one of my stories, I expect that if specific public comments of mine are believed to run afoul of policy that I will be given an opportunity to explain myself prior to being subject to punitive action. I acknowledge that there have been instances in which my tweets or public statements have violated Post policies (it is clear, for example, that I have “criticized competitors”), however the HR sanction I was issued includes factual errors, misstatements about the context and content of my public statements, and sweeping declarations that are unsupported by examples. None of the examples listed in the HR memo are incidents about which I had any discussion with Post editors prior to receiving a formal sanction. I am hopeful that a productive conversation isstill possible, but that cannot happen until the inaccurate HR memo is remedied. Beloware my factual and contextual issues with the specifics laid out in the warning letter: 1. “Specifically, both on Twitter and in TV appearances, you have made statements that violate The Post Standards and Ethics Policy” This letter provides zero examples of times I have allegedly broken policy during television appearances, so it is unclear what this is a reference to. It is unfair to sanction an employee for behavior that is not spelled out. Either examples from television appearances believed to have violated the policies should be added (so I can respond directly to this accusation, and better understand the policy), or the reference to TV appearances should be removed. 2. “You have frequently expressed views that are political in nature and impact on the ability of The Post to assign you to stories about which you have expressed those views…” This accusation – a declaration by The Post’s executive editor, in writing, that I am too biased to do my job – is extremely damaging and if ever made public would undermine my entire body of work. No examples are provided of “views that are political in nature” that I have allegedly expressed, nor are any examples given of story assignments I would have otherwise received that I have been denied due to those alleged expressions. I have no knowledge of a single instance in which I have been denied a story assignment due to my alleged political expression. 3. “You have criticized the work of Jeremy Peters of the New York Times…” The criticizecompetitors” rule is broken daily, bymany membersofthe newsroom . It is unclear what about this specific instance risesto the level of a formalsanction. The subject matterofthis criticism is the intersection of a subjectmatter I cover daily ( race and racism in America ) and another I previously covered for The Post ( the Tea Party, a componentofmybeat when I covered Congress). In response to this criticism , The New York Times updated its story. 4. “ In a tweetthatno longer exists, you criticized Post colleagues forattendinga book party atwhich Nancy Pelosiand Chuck Schumerwere in attendance, using the phrase decadent aristocrats to describe those in attendance. ” This is a factually inaccurate rendering of the tweet in question . Thattweet, a screenshot of which included below , was a response to a Maureen Dowdcolumn and addressed theNYT columnist directly and specifically . There was no mention of any Post colleagues or references to the other attendees ofthat party other than Pelosi , and thus cannotbe objectively described as criticism ofmedia members who were in attendance . The HRmemocredits mewith the words decadent aristocrats” when in fact those were Dowd's own words. I was directly quoting her. The tweet included quotation marks around the words as well as a screenshot of the relevant portion of the column . The original tweet, and the fullscreen shotthatwas included in it are below : WASHINGTON After I interviewed Nancy Pelosia few weeksago, TheHuffPosthuffed thatwewereDreadedElitesbecausewewere look, ifyou'rea 25 -year New York Times eating chocolates and ofhorrors political columnistwhopals around with the speaker had on some good pumps. the Speaker of the House you are, in fact, Then this week ,lefty Twitter erected a digital a " decadent aristocrat . If you don't have guillotine because I had a book party for my the self awareness to know that then I'm friend CarlHulse , The Times's authority on not sure whatto tell you Capitol Hill for decades, attended by family , journalists,Hilldenizensand a smattering of lawmakers, including Pelosi, Chuck Schumer Then this week,lefty Twitter erected a digital andSusan Collins. guillotine becauseI had abook party formy friendCarlHulse, TheTimes'sauthorityon I the daughter of a D.C. cop, and Carl, the son of an Illinois plumber,were hilariously painted Capitol Hill for decades, attended by family, as decadent aristocrats reveling likeMarie journalists , Hilldenizens and a smattering of Antoinettewhenweshouldhavebeenknitting lawmakers, includingPelosi Schumer likeMadameDefarge. and SusanCollins. Yo , proletariat: If the Democratic Party is I, thedaughter ofa D.C.cop and Carl,the son going to beagainst chocolate , high heels partiesandfun, you'velostme. AndI'vegot = 45 somebad newsfor you about 2020. column complained that peoplewere criticizingher as if shewere a “ decadent aristocrat.” The joke, and criticism , at the core ofmytweet was thatby hosting a book party at herGeorgetownmansion (formerly owned by PresidentKennedy) thatwas attended by the person second in line for the presidency – who happens to be a friend ofhers – had opened herself up to thatvery criticism . WhenMichaelBarbaro ofthe NYTrespondedthat itwas “ dopey” to say that anyonewho attendsa book party is an aristocrat, I clarified even furtherthat it is notattendinga book party ���� that opens someoneto criticism ofbeing“ an aristocrat, rather it isowninga Georgetown mansionwhereyouhostsocialgatheringswith Nancy Pelosi. In the follow -up tweet (deleted but preserved via online archive) I wrote: “ It'snothavinga party or a source drinksthatmakes you an aristocrat. It'sowning a homein Georgetownandhavingdirectcontact info for the most powerfulpeople in theworld in order to invite them over and them coming) that does. Kindof stunned I'd need to explain that.” Again , to the extent that I was leveling criticism , it was directed solely at Maureen Dowd, and certainly not at“ Postcolleagues ” – which is clear when the initial tweet isread in its full context, and even more clear when the entire contextof the conversation is considered . 5. “ In discussions regarding the decision by The Post to call President Trump's comments about fourDemocratic congresswomen , violated the abovenoted aspectof the policy stating that “ ourwhite colleagues engage in fruitless, if earnest, pedantic games. Additionally by discussinginternalnewsroom discussions, you violated this aspect ofthepolicy: “ socialmedianetworksare no placefor the discussion of internal editorial issues such assourcing, reportingofstories, and decision to publish or not publish. The HR memo’s rendering of this tweet is notonly factually inaccurate, butalso pulls a single clause ofa single sentence from a single tweet from amulti- tweet thread , removing necessary context. The tweets that this complaint originates with had nothing to do with the decision by The Post to call President Trump's comments about four Democratic congresswomen These tweets were about an entirely different incident – the President's racist comments about infested” Baltimore . The tweets, preserved via an online archive, have been provided in fullbelow ( each red box is oneseparate tweet, the first originally included a link or quote tweet of Trump's specific comments) Wesley @WesleyLowery Jul 27, 2019 read Cummings' district is drawn in a way that includeswealthier areas,makingTrump's attack technically inaccurate. But as with “ but three ofthefourwereborn here!” notingtechnicalinaccuracies isnot bravetruth telling. Racism is often about subtext/implication Trumpsays“ no human beingwouldwant to live in Baltimore. Buttons of people- most of them black - live in the tougher parts of Baltimore,many by choice. So...what is the president sayingabout them ? Are thosepeople less than human?What do we makeoftheir community pride? Wecould diagram these sentences in every English course for therestofhistory and stillmissthepoint Racism often manifests as subtext and implication. Black & brown ears can hear theracism clearly while our white colleagues engage in fruitless, if earnest,pedantic games As is clear, these tweets werenotabout Trump's racist attack on the four Democratic congresswomen. They were about racist attackson Rep. Elijah Cummingsand Baltimore. In this case, therehad been no public discussion about“ The Post its decision abouthow to cover Trump's comments – the tweets camejust moments after Trump's comments, as journalists