Muckraking and the Herman Cain lesson for Manufactured Housing Muckraking is a topic recently on some people's minds. In that context, the sexual harassment accusations against Herman Cain has some powerful lessons for Manufactured Housing specifically and life in general. Before going further, let me clearly state that I was not crazy about Herman Cain's so-called 999 plan. A national sales tax, Value Added Tax or VAT, whatever you call it is too tempting for DC politicos, IMHO, as just one of the practical concerns I had with this interesting and successful gent's plans for America. I share this so that no one is confused by this column being motivated my being a Cain apologist. If someone wants balance on the recent Cain flap vs. the pro-Democratic side of the media, consider Ann Coulter's column, linked below. http://content.eaglepub.com/?daPi4Z5L3Rq4sM2G3KtIkUXRsHhqhSgFd&http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438 It was a good decade or more ago that I sat in my first 'sexual harassment 101' training class. You know the type or seminar I am thinking about, where a legal expert stands up in front of a group of dozens of executives and managers, who then explains the perils of one the hottest types of litigation that contingency attorney's were on at the time. Said legal expert then tells you want you should or should not do if you wanted to avoid a sexual harassment law suit. That experience makes me wonder if the National Restaurant Association (the other NRA) overlooked giving such a workshop, or why as Coulter noted, such charges came at candidate Cain only in the context of his term at the NRA, not Godfather's Pizza, the Federal Reserve, etc. But the lesson besides 'thou shall not' sexually harass someone for manufactured housing is this. We as a nation of laws believe in a principle of innocent until proven guilty. In a civil matter, the preponderance of evidence and the burden of proof lies with the accuser(s). It is not up to the accused to prove his innocence, that is part of the system the Communists in the former Soviet Union practiced. A thousand paper cuts can cause someone to bleed to death. Innuendo, whispers and open or behind the scenes back stabbing can destroy a person's reputation, even if the person is innocent of the accusation. Let me drive home the point with a hypothetical example. Let's imagine that someone well known in our Industry, say an award winning gent like George Allen, began a negative whisper campaign against someone, say myself or of our online trade media, MHProNews.com. Let's further imagine Allen's hypothetical motivation was to attempt to destroy or marginalize the influence of what we do, perhaps so that by comparison his publishing efforts would look more important or be more valuable should he chose to sell it. So in emails, TAC, his blog, verbally, etc. Allen would whisper or allege 'whatever' he would want that might make others pause about our work, or myself. All for his (hypothetical/alleged) personal benefit. National polls currently show that 60-70% of those polled who liked Herman Cain before still like him after these decade-plus old sexual harassment allegations. However, about 30% of those queried admit they now doubt him, and are unsure if they would vote for him. While it is good news for the Cain campaign that most still like him, the point is that 30% could more than cost him an election. Thus without proving a thing against Mr Cain, the point Ann Coulter raised in her column is underscored. If at this point this smear tactic is all that is needed to marginalize or derail a candidacy, then Cain's opponent (be the original source(s) Republican, Democratic or others) has sadly been successful. I was listening to Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. recently. Alveda said she knows Herman Cain, believes him, and that for every woman who made such a claim, there are thousands who know and have worked with the Republican candidate who would say they were never sexually harassed and would never believe it. But none of that proves anything either. It is a matter for mature consideration. If someone is throwing mud, in our Industry as in the hypothetical example with George Allen above, or outside of it, we as mature adults ought to give pause and question the motives of the accuser(s). I learned years ago that the person who throws dirt is only losing ground. That when someone points a finger at another, 3 more are point back at the accuser. When George Allen recently called publicly for a publishing muckraker in our Industry (this example is not hypothetical, it is real), I wrote the man privately and said, we at MHProNews have no intention of being a muckracker. Let a mud or dirt slinger do that, we have no interest. Here is the first definition Google yielded. Definition for muckraker: Web definitions: one who spreads real or alleged scandal about another (usually for political advantage). wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn I added the emphasis, but otherwise as in the original. I would observe that usually for political advantage doesn't keep it from being applicable to business or other hoped for advantages. The media, be it trade media or mainstream media, ideally has it duties and obligations. Balance should be one of those obligations. We at MHProNews seek balance, and the views of others routinely in Industry Voices of featured articles, or news stories we cover, The supposed reason Mr Allen publicly called for a muckraker was indeed a serious industry subject. It is serious for community operators, as George himself stated. Namely the topic of fire sprinkler standards being proposed for HUD Code manufactured homes and MHI's recent action on that with the Manufactured Housing Censuses Committee (MHCC). It complicates the professional life for communities, retailers, HUD Code manufactures and others. Apparently George F. Allen doesn't realize (or want to admit?) that we at MHProNews have covered this story more than all of the other industry media sources combined.  A sampling: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/sparks-fly-on-nfpa-report-on-fires-and-manufactured-homes-we-provide-you-decide/ https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/mharr-sprinkler-system-fires-up-again/ An Independent third party analysis by Doug Gorman in Industry Voices: http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/blogs/industryvoices/manufactured-housing-consensus-committee-analysis-of-mhi-and-mharr-positions/ Previous sprinkler stories in recent months: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/new-hampshire-house-“drowns”-sprinklers-in-mh/ https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/sprinkler-debate-continues-at-mhcc-teleconference/ The point is that whatever his motivation, Mr. Allen is dead wrong in saying we need a muckraker. What we as an Industry needs is balanced journalism that we at MHProNews are already providing. Allen was equally wrong to question the motives of my friend Dennis Hill in his use of the shark to promote the 2012 Louisville Manufactured Housing Show (please see the banner ad on this blog or most MHMSM.com pages – I should add that the ad was not designed by our firm, but it shark does its job!). I think George needs to consider taking a marketing 101 class, because attention getting is one of the basic rules of good ads and marketing. More than 5 times as many people turned out for Louisville in 2011 that show up for an Allen Roundtable. George does well promoting himself, Dennis Hill does over 5 times better promoting his clients. Mr. Hill is a gentleman. He is a dedicated Industry professional. He has done amazing things over the years for the various shows he has promoted, and he does so with the fan fare pointed at the event and at others, not himself. George, I respectfully disagree with you; muckraking is not what our Industry needs. What is needed is gentlemanly, professional reporting, fair and balanced. But don't worry, you don't have to do it, we are already doing so. You can retire in peace anytime you wish knowing the Industry will carry on just fine long after you are gone. # #