Update, via a reader below, regarding the gray area that is using anonymous sources, which I choose only to do if I have independent corroborating sources:
“here’s the guideline NPR uses:
“The grant of anonymity should be a last resort. When NPR journalists use anonymous sources to obtain information necessary for a story, the editor or producer of that story has an obligation to satisfy him/herself that the source is credible and reliable, and there is a substantial journalistic justification for using the source’s information without attribution. This obligation also pertains to situations where individuals ask that their real names be withheld. The editor or producer has a twofold responsibility to (1) make a judgment about whether it is editorially justified to let the person speak anonymously, and (2) satisfy him/herself that this person is who the piece says s/he is. An editor should never be in the position of having to verify these things after a story has aired and a question is raised about it. We should not grant anonymity if a person makes pejorative comments about the character, reputation, or personal qualities of another individual, or derogatory statements about an institution.”
Update: we’ve received additional documents. Because the source prefers to remain anonymous, we won’t publish those documents. But suffice to say, everything regarding the pension issue has been straightened out now (see original document below). Previously, things had gotten messed up or confused for a long time. That said, (even according to “Former Employee,” anonymous person who is not a fan of Mr. Friend but who claims not to be behind the jfexposed site), it was a case of ongoing negligence or incompetence, not deliberate greed, theft or corruption.
If I have this wrong, feel free to email me. We will only publish sourced facts, nothing anonymous.
As I mention below, I am not here to litigate the case. That’s not my role or skill. elephant is here to provide an opportunity for fair and honest dialogue, which will hopefully help enable all of us to then move forward. ~ ed.
1st document pertaining to “jfexposed” allegations re John Friend of Anusara Yoga: Pension.
I interviewed John Friend—only recently on the cover of the Sunday New York Times where he was called “the Yoga Mogul”—just this afternoon.
It’s been a looong four days for the yoga community, and particularly John’s once-mighty Anusara Yoga community, or kula.
Over the last few months, several of Anusara’s senior teachers have resigned, citing vague differences. Then, on Friday, an anonymous, internationally-hosted web site was posted accusing John of various affairs, financial corruption, and more.
I’ll have our interview, which asks what I regard as the five tough, pertinent, yet fair questions regarding the anonymous web site’s accusations. This first post addresses the issue of whether John Friend and Anusara Yoga engaged in financial corruption through a pension plan.
That interview will be posted, along with John’s first public statement, as soon as possible.
This is how we, as a mindful community, do this. We don’t react to rumor—we look deeper, and find facts, non-anonymous sources, and explore issues, however painful. We seek to combine transparency and compassion. In the meantime, I have only commented about why we were letting the biggest scoop of the year, from a media perspective, fly by. Now that we’re securing some legal documents, and firsthand answers from John, we’ll begin.
May it be of benefit.
Note: comments, supportive and otherwise, are welcome. Name-calling and such will be deleted. Here’s our official, long-standing “Mean Comments Suck” comment policy. ~ ed.
I received this document from Dave Kennedy, a colleague of John Friend. This document itself is a letter from Anusara’s Third Party Plan Administrator. If anyone has any questions of a private nature, or doubts about the above, please email me. ~ ed.