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 isunclear what about this specific instance risesto the level of a formalsanction. The subject

matterof this criticism is the intersectionof a subjectmatter I cover daily ( race and racism in

America ) and another I previously covered for The Post ( the Tea Party, a componentofmybeatwhen 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 phrasedecadent aristocrats to describe those in attendance. ”

This is a factually inaccurate rendering of the tweet in question . Thattweet, a screenshot ofwhich 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 ascriticism 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 shot thatwas included in it are below :WASHINGTON After I interviewed NancyPelosia few weeksago, TheHuffPosthuffed

thatwewereDreadedElitesbecausewewerelook, ifyou'rea 25 -year New York Times eating chocolates and ofhorrorspolitical 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 digitala " decadent aristocrat . If you don't have guillotine because I had a book party for mythe 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

Then this week,lefty Twitter erected a digital lawmakers, including Pelosi, Chuck SchumerandSusan Collins.

guillotine becauseI had abook party formy

friendCarlHulse, TheTimes'sauthorityon I the daughter of a D.C.cop, and Carl, the son

Capitol Hill for decades, attended by family, of an Illinois plumber,were hilariously painted

journalists , Hilldenizens and a smattering ofas decadent aristocrats reveling likeMarie

Antoinettewhenweshouldhavebeenknittinglawmakers, includingPelosi Schumer likeMadameDefarge.and SusanCollins.

Yo, proletariat: If the Democratic Party isI, thedaughter ofa D.C.cop and Carl, the son going to beagainst chocolate , high heels

partiesandfun, you'velostme. AndI'vegot

45 somebad newsfor you about2020.

column complained that peoplewere criticizingher as if shewere a “ decadentaristocrat.” The joke, and criticism , at the core ofmytweet was thatby hosting a book party atherGeorgetownmansion (formerly ownedby PresidentKennedy) thatwas attended by the

person second in line for the presidency – who happens to bea friend ofhers – had openedherself up to thatvery criticism .

=

WhenMichaelBarbaro ofthe NYTrespondedthat itwas “ dopey” to say that anyonewhoattendsa book party is an aristocrat, I clarified even further that it is notattendingabook partythat opens someoneto criticism ofbeing“ an aristocrat, rather it isowninga Georgetown

mansionwhereyouhostsocialgatheringswith Nancy Pelosi. In the follow -up tweet (deletedbutpreserved via online archive) I wrote: “ It'snothavinga party or a source drinksthatmakesyouan aristocrat. It'sowning a homein Georgetownandhavingdirectcontact info for the most

powerfulpeople in theworld in order to invite them over and them coming) that does. Kindofstunned I'd need to explain that.”

Again , to the extent that I was leveling criticism , itwas 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 commentsabout fourDemocratic congresswomen , violated the abovenoted aspectofthe policy stating that “ ourwhite colleagues engage in fruitless, if earnest,pedantic

games. Additionally by discussinginternalnewsroom discussions, you violated thisaspectof thepolicy: “ socialmedianetworksare no placefor the discussion of internal

editorial issuessuch assourcing, reportingofstories, and decision to publish or notpublish.

The HR memo’s rendering of this tweet is notonly factually inaccurate, butalso pulls a singleclauseofa single sentence from a single tweet from amulti- tweet thread , removing necessarycontext.

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 aboutinfested” Baltimore .

The tweets, preserved via an online archive, have been provided in fullbelow ( each red box isoneseparate 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'sattack technically inaccurate. Butas with “but three ofthefourwereborn here!”notingtechnical inaccuracies isnot bravetruth telling. Racism isoften aboutsubtext/ implication

Trumpsays“nohuman 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 wemakeoftheir community pride?

Wecould diagram these sentences in every English course for therestofhistory and

stillmissthepoint Racism oftenmanifests as subtext and implication. Black & brownears can hear theracism clearly while our white colleagues engage in fruitless, ifearnest,pedantic games

As is clear, these tweets werenotabout Trump's racist attack on the four Democratic

congresswomen. They were about racist attackson Rep. Elijah CummingsandBaltimore.

In this case, therehad been no public discussion about“ The Post its decision abouthow tocover Trump's comments – the tweets camejust moments after Trump's comments, as

journalists began engaging in a public debate about whether we should describe the attack onCummings as racist. At thetime, the discussion centered on whether itwas enough to “ fact

check” Trump's tweets – since Cummings' district includes wealthier areas and thus Trump wasinaccurate whether as journalists we should to grapple with the subtext.

None of these tweets disclose information about“ private internalnewsroom discussions” – the

policy for which I am being sanctioned – which is clear because 1. I had notbeen party to anysuch discussions,making disclosure of their content impossible 2. I was participating in a broadpublic discussion of journalism and about how various journalists think various publicationsshould grapple with ifand when to call public statementsby the presidentand others “ racist.”

I was not proclaimingto speak for or even about The Post, rather was speaking as a journalist, inongoing conversation with other journalists, about an industrywidedebate about a topic cover

directly race and racism in America. The tweet includesno information regardingordiscussionof sourcing, reportingofstories, and decisions to publish ornot publish.”

While itisnotunreasonablethat someWashington Postcolleaguemay have read these tweetsand feltpersonally indicted, it is objectively clear from the context thatthis was nota referenceto a specific internalconversation aboutwhether to callTrump'stweets racist – which I wouldagain note that I havenotbeen party to or a reference to informalconversationsthathadhappenedbetweenmeandother Post employees and was instead a broad discussionofbehavior

within themedia,” membersof which are accurately referred to asmy“ colleagues. ”

I am eager to see a resolution to this disagreement, which has deeply impairedmy ability to domy job. Given The Post's sweeping socialmedia policies and their inconsistent enforcement, Iremain in the dark as to where the lines actually are and happy am to engage in furtherconversationsto ensure my public statementsmeet expectations.

And I am also eager to further discussmyrole at The Post especially given that the public

championingofmedia diversity both in hiring and in coverage – that has long been core to my

public identity appears to increasingly run afoulof how The Postexpects its reporters to conductthemselves on socialmediaand in other public statements.

Generations ofblack journalists , including here at The Washington Post,haveserved as theconscience notonly of their publicationsbutofourentire industry: their authority derived fromthe experience navigating this world while cloaked in black skin; their expertise earned throughtheir own daily journalism . Often those journalists have done so by levelingpublic criticism of

both their competitors and their own employers. Newsorganizationsoften respond to suchinternaland external pressure.

In closing, it is importantto emphasize again the seriousnesswith which I take my role as aprominentblack journalist and how that role – in the tradition of generations ofblack journalists

includes public discussion ofhow issuesof race are covered.

Wesley Lowery