The New York Times reporter behind a series of investigative articles that questioned the operations of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) defended the quality of her reporting while stating the newspaper was serving as a “watchdog” against the trade group.
In an interview with Real Estate News, Debra Kamin stated she began her investigation into NAR in January based on “a desire on my part and the New York Times as a whole to understand how NAR was going to react to the lawsuit” that resulted in the settlement that redefined NAR’s guidelines on realtor compensation practices. She added that prior to the settlement, “there wasn’t a whole lot of clarity” regarding the depth and scope of NAR’s assets.
In writing her articles on NAR, Kamin stressed she sought to “help people understand how those dues dollars are getting spent and where they are going” She insisted that her reporting was accurate and dismissed those who claimed she had an agenda against NAR.
“I think our reporting is fair, it’s balanced, it’s honest, it’s excellent — I stand behind it,” she said. “A lot of times, unfortunately, when people don’t like what is being reported, their response is that there must be some sort of motive behind the news. That is not the case. My goal as a reporter with every single story is to seek the truth and help readers understand what’s happening. That’s the mission of the New York Times, and I take that very seriously.”
Kamin added, “The New York Times cannot serve as any sort of activist. They can only serve as a watchdog that alerts people to certain things that may be happening, and that is what we did here, and I’m proud of it.”
Photo courtesy of Debra Kamin’s X account
;
NAR is nothing more than a political problem. I have been a licensed real estate agent for over 20 years and I have never heard one positive item that NAR does for the agent. Other than collecting their dues.
I’m very sorry, Debra, but this hardly rises to the level of unbiased and accurate reporting. What you, along with the perpetrators of the lawsuit, have done, has besmirched one of the only trade organizations that is governed from the bottom up not the top down. I have been a Realtor for 48 years. I have served as a local president, state president, and regional vice president for New England along with more than a dozen committee memberships over those years. At each level we set policy and approve budgets line item by line item. We spend millions of dollars on education and advocacy annually – we support private property rights, home ownership access, environmental responsibility and other matters that have nothing to do with the business of selling real estate. I know because I have done and continue to do it. I have, in the capacities I mentioned – which are all voluntary without pay – dealt with the media extensively. I’ve been a NYT subscriber for years and have watched as bias and less than in-depth reporting has crept in all most subject matters, not just real estate. It’s sad because we need it. Democracy indeed “dies in the darkness.”
Great comment!
I am also a Times subscriber, and do not argue that many (most) media outlets today are biased in their reporting. But as a broker and NAR member, I can say without question that NAR is a corrupt organization more concerned with self-preservation than advancing the interests on on-the-street real estate agents. Both can be – and are – true
Thank you for addressing the disparaging remarks coming from the NAR haters and naysayers. Thank you for your life of service.
Well said I have been a realtor for about 50 years and very active on local state and national Association of realtor and I believe your comments very accurate
10-4 Good buddy in the old truckers lingo. I’m a retired real estate professional with 42 years in the business. While I mostly was a residential and small business appraiser I was also a broker from 1984-2023. I met some of the nicest and most professional people as Realtors that I took my hat off to. They were a real asset in the industry and I’d assume so to their clients. I met them in the countless class we took for relicensing and in our field of work. I did cross deals with many Realtors that didn’t have to do business like competing lawyers in a court room yet represented their clients with a fiduciary conduct. What I’m trying to say is that there are a lot of really good Realtors in NAR! The deal NAR agreed to to end class action lawsuits based on past commission payouts I disagreed with but in reality it is way above my pay grade. It seems that “ambulance chaser” attorneys and “poor me” customers that want something for nothing or want to hit the lottery so they don’t have to work in their get rich scheme are disgusting human termites eating away at the foundation of the Realtor industry. The lawsuit payout amounts are immoral and open the door for more such actions. While “caveat emptore” should not be a complete rule for buying and selling Real estate it still should be a basis for actions of its participants. So when are the massive lawsuits on stock market brokers or investment funds going to occur because the buyers and sellers didn’t like the commission structures? When will car salesmen or for that matter any commission based sale be sued because the buyer didn’t like paying a fee in the transaction? This is an endless potential revenue stream for lawyers and greedy people in our country.
Totally agree Greg, we work hard for our money and put up with a lot . Now everyone will be wanting to cut commissions on all sales. I don’t see attorneys or title companies lowering their fees.
Good response, David.
she says there’s clarity. it’s clear as a dirty pond, nobody truly understands what’s going on. this girl is delusional in a reporting she doesn’t even understand what she’s talking about. it’s sad very sad.
On a local level in Jackson, Michigan our Listing Contract forms have Purchase Agreements have, for many, many years, been clear, open, unbiased, and fair. Most members of the local MLS will agree with that. Your reporting put a negative blanket over all Realtors. Your reporting was not fair.
The NEW YORK TIMES IS COMPLETELY ABOUT ACTIVISM AND BIAS.
In presidential elections, The New York Times has endorsed a total of 32 Democratic candidates, 12 Republicans, but has endorsed the Democrat in every election since 1960. Not one Republican.
Though, beginning in 1921, they began to show a strong affection for a fellow over in Germany named Adolf Hitler. Do your research!
Where’s Morely Safer and Mike Wallace when you need them? Those were the days
After reading through the NYT article, you get to the bottom and find all the corrections. An article rife with errors is not what I call “excellent”. Also, the one thing NAR should do correctly is support pro-business, not the “woke” socialist agenda.
NAR allowed NO MEMBER INPUT in the ridiculous “Settlement” unilaterally, without Realtor Member discussion, or vote, it was so wrong to do so! The fact is the Top of the NAR along with its well paid Attorneys did an injustice to all Buyers and their hardworking Agents. With the National Average RE Agent earning less than $60,000 a year, this was both unnecessary and career distructive. We are ONLY members for the darn Forms, nothing else!!!
NAR allowed NO MEMBER INPUT in the ridiculous “Settlement” unilaterally, without Realtor Member discussion, or vote, it was so wrong to do so! The fact is the Top of the NAR along with its well paid Attorneys did an injustice to all Buyers and their hardworking Agents. With the National Average RE Agent earning less than $60,000 a year, this was both unnecessary and career destructive. We are ONLY members for the darn Forms, nothing else!!!
NAR vs. The New York Times. Two organizations that are useless. I can’t root for either of them so I’ll just hope that damage each other.