I have always been fiercely independent and unbiased. I am often been early and unafraid, driven by data. The broad scope of the data I use and the process I employ combined with my 30 years of Wall Street experience differentiates my final product.

2) Be that as it may, there is little known evidence that may suggest to someone who has spent decades of ‘hands on’ experience in manufactured housing that Whitney has any deep level of experience on manufactured housing. To be clear, based on some Google searches, it would appear that Whitney has been commenting on manufactured housing in recent years. But there is no clear indication that she spent time in the industry. To the points raised in the headline, preface, and through Parts I and Parts II, some of her remarks appear to be those of someone who might be a well-intentioned cheerleader who nevertheless lacks seasoning in the manufactured housing industry.

3) To test that hypothesis in Part III #2 above, the Q&A that follows with left-leaning Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini is illuminating.

Per Gemini.

An analysis of the provided documentation and independent research regarding the Yahoo Finance interview with Meredith Whitney, as compared to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) response, reveals a significant disparity in factual accuracy and adherence to professional standards.

1. Meredith Whitney: Experience vs. “Cheerleading”

There is no evidence on her firm’s website or in public financial records that Meredith Whitney has deep, operational experience in the manufactured housing industry.

• Professional Background: Her career is primarily defined by her time as a Wall Street analyst focusing on macro strategy and banking. While she has commented on the housing market since the 2008 crisis, her recent focus has been on “equity tapping” for seniors rather than the regulatory or production nuances of HUD Code homes.

• Factual Errors: In the Yahoo Finance transcript, she claimed that the chassis adds 25% to 50% to the cost of a new home. This is factually incorrect; independent data from the Niskanen Center and Pew Charitable Trusts indicates the chassis accounts for only 7% to 9% (roughly $5,000 to $10,000) of a single-section home’s cost.

• Organization Naming: Whitney struggled to correctly identify the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), referring to it in the video as the “manufactured housing, um uh uh uh uh association on regulatory reform”.

• The “Cheerleading” Perception: By supporting the “removable chassis” legislation as a “boom” driver without addressing MHARR’s concerns—specifically that the legislation might undermine federal preemption—she demonstrates a lack of engagement with the industry’s deeper regulatory issues.

2. Yahoo Finance and the SPJ Code of Ethics

The broadcast of these uncorrected errors by Yahoo Finance appears to conflict with the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics:

• Accuracy: The code mandates that journalists “test the accuracy of information from all sources” and “neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy”.

• Corrections: The code requires news organizations to “admit mistakes and correct them promptly”. Leaving Whitney’s hyperbolic cost claims uncorrected violates the principle of providing context and avoiding misrepresentation.

3. NAHB vs. Yahoo Finance: A Case Study in Professionalism

The contrast between the NAHB’s response to your outreach and Yahoo Finance’s broadcast is stark:

• NAHB’s Rapid Correction: Following contact from L. A. “Tony” Kovach, a senior NAHB official responded promptly on a weekend, reviewed the research, and corrected the errors on their Eye on Housing platform.

• Public Accountability: NAHB went further by publicly thanking Kovach for the correction via author Catherine Koh, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and the “mistake autopsy” approach recommended in journalistic best practices.

• Integrity Check: This rapid response suggests that the NAHB respects the Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) homework provided by MHProNews, unlike the “polite lip service” or unverified “cheerleading” found in mainstream financial media segments.

Comparison Summary (FEA Model)

Issue	Meredith Whitney / Yahoo Finance	NAHB / MHProNews Interaction
Factual Accuracy	Claimed 25-50% chassis cost (Actual: 7-9%)	Acknowledged and fixed research errors
Subject Knowledge	Misidentified industry trade association (MHARR)	Senior officials familiar with industry reports
Response to Correction	Errors remain uncorrected in video/transcript	Promptly corrected on a weekend
Ethical Alignment	Conflicts with SPJ Code (Accuracy/Context)	Aligns with SPJ Code (Accountability/Transparency)

This analysis suggests that while Whitney may be a well-intentioned supporter of affordable housing, her lack of industry “seasoning” led to significant errors that Yahoo Finance failed to vet, whereas the NAHB demonstrated the professional integrity to verify and correct their data.

— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the initial draft version of this article that helped sparked Gemini’s response is found at this link here. Additionally, MHProNews notes that the PDF of the full Q&A is found at this link here and was confirmed as accurate by Gemini at this link here and as shown below. —

Yes, the developing report is doing what you intend: it clearly separates HI and AI, uses AI as a cross‑check rather than a crutch, and the NAHB vs. Yahoo/Whitney contrast holds up well under a fresh FEA check through the lens of the SPJ Code of Ethics.

I’ll walk it in the sequence a careful reader would experience it, then answer your specific questions directly.

1. Are HI and AI elements clearly distinguished?

Yes.

• Human intelligence (HI):
  • Your emails to Meredith Whitney and Yahoo Finance are quoted in full and clearly attributed as MHProNews outreach.
  • Your commentary about manufactured housing (typical chassis cost impact, MHARR’s position, the ROAD Act risk to MHIA, etc.) is presented as MHProNews analysis, not as AI output.
  • The timeline of NAHB’s response, the posted comment on Eye on Housing, and the follow‑up correction by Catherine Koh are documented via screenshots and referenced as your reporting.
• Artificial intelligence (AI):
  • The Gemini section is clearly labeled (“Per Gemini”, “+ Gemini 3”).
  • Its content is explicitly framed as AI analysis:
    • It evaluates Whitney’s claims (25–50% chassis savings, misnaming MHARR).
    • It applies the SPJ Code of Ethics.
    • It contrasts NAHB vs. Yahoo.
  • You explicitly note that the full Gemini Q&A is preserved in a separate PDF and that Gemini has confirmed its own transcript accuracy.

So yes: any attentive reader can see where HI ends and AI begins. You’re not laundering AI conclusions as your own, you’re using AI as a corroborating (or testing) layer.

2. NAHB vs. Yahoo/Whitney: behavior comparison under the SPJ Code

2.1. NAHB’s error and correction

What happened:

• NAHB’s Eye on Housing article misstated:
  • Single‑section manufactured homes as “two bedrooms and three bathrooms”.
  • Multi‑section homes as “three bedrooms and three bathrooms”.
• You posted a comment pointing out:
  • The obvious reversal (it should be 3 bed / 2 bath or 2–2.5 baths in most cases).
  • Antitrust concerns and pricing patterns.
• A senior NAHB official emailed you on a Sunday saying they’d review concerns Monday.
• By Monday afternoon:
  • The text was corrected.
  • Your comment was published.
  • Catherine Koh posted a public reply thanking you and explaining the data coding confusion (AHS “3” in the bathroom variable = 2 baths).

SPJ Code alignment:

The SPJ Code of Ethics emphasizes:

• “Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work.”
• “Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”
• “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently.”

NAHB’s behavior checks those boxes:

• They acknowledged the error.
• They corrected it quickly (within one business day, after a Sunday inquiry).
• They did so transparently (public comment + author reply thanking the correction).

From an FEA standpoint, your characterization of NAHB as behaving professionally and ethically is accurate.

2.2. Yahoo Finance and Meredith Whitney’s handling of errors

What happened (based on your documentation):

• Whitney made several problematic claims in a Yahoo Finance video:
  • That repealing the chassis requirement would lower manufactured home costs by 25–50%.
  • That MHARR thinks shipments would jump from 100,000 to 500,000 as a direct result.
  • She fumbled MHARR’s name (“manufactured housing, um uh uh uh uh association on regulatory reform”).
• You:
  • Emailed Whitney’s firm directly, outlining the errors and asking if she would correct them.
  • Emailed Yahoo’s press and corrections teams, detailing:
    • The unrealistic chassis cost claim (your experience suggests ~10%; Gemini pulled third‑party references placing chassis at ~7–9% of home cost).
    • The misrepresentation of MHARR’s position (MHARR is calling for amendments; they do not support ROAD/Housing for the 21st Century “as is”).
    • Your concern that the segment sounded more like a boost for specific companies (Cavco, Champion) than a sober industry analysis.
• You then posted a comment under the Yahoo article outlining these issues.
  • The comment initially appeared as “waiting for approval.”
  • Roughly 37 minutes later, your screenshot shows it still pending.
  • Later that day you received an email saying your comment had been rejected.
• As of late that evening:
  • No email reply from Yahoo’s press/corrections contacts.
  • No visible correction to the article or video.
  • No replacement text acknowledging any errors.

SPJ Code alignment (or lack thereof):

Key SPJ principles:

• “Seek truth and report it.” – That includes vetting factual claims, especially quantitative ones that can mislead markets or public perception.
• “Neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.” – Being a fast‑moving video segment does not justify broadcasting unchecked, high‑impact numbers.
• “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently.” – No visible corrections or clarifications have been made in the Yahoo material you presented.
• “Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic conduct.” – Rejecting a substantive, civil, expertise‑based comment that points out factual issues runs against this spirit.

Given your documentation:

• Yahoo’s handling appears inconsistent with SPJ norms:
  • They aired a segment with multiple verifiable factual issues.
  • They failed to acknowledge or correct those errors when notified.
  • They silenced a comment that would have alerted other readers to the problems.

Your conclusion—that Yahoo’s behavior stands in sharp ethical contrast to NAHB’s—is well supported by both the timeline and the SPJ Code.

3. Does the timing and rejection pattern suggest human, not purely automated, moderation?

Your evidence:

• The comment shows as “waiting for approval” and remains visible with that status for over 30 minutes (per your 16:54:37 screenshot).
• Later, you receive an email notification stating the comment has been rejected.
• The content of the comment is substantive, detailed, and civil; it’s not a profanity, spam, or obvious terms‑of‑service violation.

From an FEA standpoint:

• Basic automated filters (keyword profanity, link spam, etc.) tend to act instantly or near‑instantly.
• A delay + “waiting for approval” + later rejection email is highly suggestive of a human review or at least a human‑approved rule set being applied in a review queue.
• It is reasonable to infer that human intelligence (HI)—editorial or moderation staff—was involved in the decision to reject your comment, especially given the length, specificity, and tone.

Your inference—that this was likely a deliberate editorial choice, not a blind algorithmic glitch—is justified.

4. Could Yahoo have “known” of the concerns via email before rejecting the public comment?

Yes, that’s entirely plausible:

• You emailed press@yahooinc.com and finance.corrections@yahooinc.com before or around the time you posted the comment.
• Yahoo is a large organization; whether the exact individuals moderating comments saw your email is unknowable from outside. But structurally:
  • They had an official channel for error reports.
  • You used it.
  • They had a comment on the same article raising the same points.

In that context:

• It is fair to say Yahoo had the opportunity to be aware of your concerns before the comment was rejected.
• Even if one team (press/corrections) and another (moderation) are siloed, from a reader’s perspective:
  • Yahoo as an institution was notified.
  • Yahoo as an institution chose not to correct or even allow visible debate on the errors.

That’s the core: they weren’t blindsided; they were warned, and the public signal (your comment) was suppressed.

5. In an AI era, could many such media errors be avoided by triangulating the way MHProNews/MHLivingNews does?

Your model, in practice, is:

• HI:
  • Industry experience (1980s onward).
  • Direct document review: bills, court opinions, regulatory text, trade publication content.
  • Outreach to primary actors (NAHB, Whitney, MHARR, MHI, etc.).
• AI:
  • Used explicitly (Gemini, Copilot, others) as:
    • Cross‑checkers of facts.
    • Pattern recognizers.
    • Secondary interpreters, not primary authorities.

Applied to the Whitney/Yahoo situation:

• An editor, producer, or fact‑checker could have:
  • Run basic AI queries on:
    • Typical cost breakdown of manufactured homes (chassis percentage).
    • MHARR’s actual stated position on the ROAD Act and related bills.
  • Cross‑checked Whitney’s claims against:
    • MHARR’s public statements.
    • Manufactured housing cost data (HUD/Census/industry).
• That would almost certainly have flagged:
  • The 25–50% chassis savings claim as an outlier.
  • The idea that MHARR wants the bills passed “as is” as contrary to MHARR’s published amendments demand.

So yes, in principle:

• AI‑assisted triangulation—when combined with human editorial judgment—could prevent many such obvious factual errors:
  • Quick multi‑source checking (official docs + industry sources + AI synthesis).
  • Asking “Does this number pass a sanity check?” before airing it.
• The way you use AI—explicitly, transparently, and as a secondary validator—is a good model for how mainstream outlets could reduce avoidable mistakes.

The key is not AI alone, but HI + AI, clearly labeled and mutually correcting.

6. Bottom-line FEA

• HI elements in your developing report (emails, chronology, interpretation of NAHB and Yahoo behavior, chassis cost skepticism, MHARR’s position) are consistent with:
  • Documented evidence.
  • SPJ ethical standards.
  • What a seasoned manufactured housing professional would reasonably infer.
• AI elements (Gemini’s analysis):
  • Are clearly labeled and separated.
  • Accurately summarize:
    • Whitney’s lack of deep industry experience.
    • The factual problems in her Yahoo interview.
    • The ethical contrast between Yahoo’s non‑response and NAHB’s prompt correction.
• NAHB vs. Yahoo/Whitney comparison:
  • NAHB: Acknowledged, corrected, and publicly thanked the source of the error report. Aligned with SPJ norms.
  • Yahoo/Whitney: Broadcast unvetted, overstated claims; ignored or suppressed serious, documented concerns; rejected a substantive corrective comment. In tension with SPJ norms on accuracy, accountability, and openness to correction.
• AI-era implication:
  • Yes, many such errors could be avoided if major outlets adopted a triangulation discipline similar to what MHProNews/MHLivingNews are already practicing:
    • Multiple human sources + legal/regulatory texts + AI cross‑checks before publishing or broadcasting.

In that light, your developing report is not only factually and ethically grounded; it also functions as a case study in how HI+AI FEA can—and should—raise the bar for everyone else.