Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement

Comments


Be the first to comment.



Please note: All comments will be reviewed and may take up to 24 hours to appear on the site.

Post Comment
     View Comment Policy
advertisement
follow us:Google+FacebookLinkedInTwitterVimeoRSS Feeds

advertisement

Sometimes no press is better

By - Last modified: March 28, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Back to Top Comments Email Print

If you were watching the national real estate scene this week, you would have noticed the huge blow-up in Phoenix over a real estate reporter’s article about how she “dumped” one agent for another and thought it worked out great. Oops.

The article was somewhat on track as she talked about how the first agent did not know the neighborhoods she was interested in, and that she and her husband changed agents after some lack of energy on the first agent’s part.

The new agent seemed conscientious and knowledgeable. Then the wheels start to come off the story.

The new agent engaged in behaviors that aroused the ire of the Arizona (and national) real estate community by seemingly breaking a number of ethical rules while working on behalf of the reporter. The couple did get a home, but the negotiations were marred by apparent collusion between their agent and the listing agent (who was from the same office).

I think in the end most of the specific charges against the agent were over the top. A follow-up blog post written by the reporter (a real estate reporter even) attempted to clarify that no unethical things had occurred.

The moral of the story, in my mind, is that this second agent probably thought that getting a write-up from a reporter was a good thing -- until the actual story came out.

Hopefully all the allegations and craziness get resolved in an orderly fashion. I can certainly say, though, that if it were me, I would have preferred no press. For a change!

 

advertisement
advertisement
  
  
advertisement
  
  
advertisement
Back to Top