What Bill O'Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War

That's the central question raised by Mother Jones in a report published Thursday, and the answer appears to be both yes and no.

The Fox News host insists he never said he was in the Falkland Islands during the conflict. As a reporter for CBS News at the time, O'Reilly and his colleagues were based in Buenos Aires, far from the war zone in and around the islands.

Some of O'Reilly's accounts stem from a protest that occurred in Buenos Aires at the time, though that wouldn't qualify as a war zone.

As longtime CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer told Mother Jones, "Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands... For us, you were a thousand miles from where the fighting was."

Here is the public record of what O'Reilly has said:

2001: O'Reilly wrote in his book, "The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America," that his time covering war made him ready for anything. "You know that I am not easily shocked," he wrote. "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands, and in chaotic situations like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles."

2004: In his syndicated column, O'Reilly recalled how he had "survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War." He was presumably referring to a protest he covered in Buenos Aires, but his reference to a "combat situation" could reasonably be interpreted as a "war zone."

2008: Seven years ago on the "O'Reilly Factor," the host invoked his experience "in the war zones" to taunt Bill Moyers, the veteran journalist with whom he's feuded for years. "By the way, I missed Moyers in the war zones of the Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland," O'Reilly said. "I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him."

2013: During an interview on his Fox News show, O'Reilly once again described the protest but said it took place "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands."

"Because I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete," O'Reilly told his guest.

The Falklands War 1982: Very few journalists made it inside the war zone to cover the conflict.

Some of O'Reilly's statements seem much less questionable.

2009: During an on-air segment with Bernard Goldberg, himself a former CBS News journalist, O'Reilly said that the network "sent me to El Salvador and to cover the Falkland Islands war in Argentina.

2011: After reading an email from a viewer who was honeymooning down in Argentina, O'Reilly noted his history with the region.

"Tell everybody down there I covered the Falklands War," he told the viewer. "They'll remember."

2012: O'Reilly read an email from a viewer based in the Falkland Islands and said he had "a little soft spot" for the region, given that he "covered the Falklands War."

2015: After Mother Jones dogged him all day Thursday for a response, O'Reilly casually -- and carefully -- invoked his assignment in Argentina.

"When I was at the network news, when there was a conflict, a war, any kind of really violent crime spree, whatever, they're all over it," O'Reilly told Goldberg. "I mean, even minor wars, like the Falklands War -- you know, I was down there in Argentina and Uruguay. The Salvadoran War, I was there. When Grenada hit, there was big coverage of Grenada. All of that."

A little later in the segment, perhaps anticipating the Mother Jones report, O'Reilly clarified his earlier comments.

"I didn't go to Grenada. I want to make that clear to everybody," O'Reilly said, while laughing. "I don't want to get in trouble. But I was in Salvador and Argentina."

Related: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

Related: Mother Jones demands apology

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 6:46 PM ET

17.42 | 0 komentar | Read More

No dogs allowed: San Francisco's pet housing crisis

According to San Francisco animal welfare nonprofit SF SPCA, there's been a surge in owners abandoning their pets due to an inability to find pet-friendly housing.

Over the last year, one in four people who left pets with the organization cited problems finding pet-friendly housing. The organization started tracking the numbers this year after staff noticed that housing issues were becoming an increasingly common problem, according to spokesperson Krista Maloney.

An influx of highly-paid tech workers in recent years have pushed out many low- and middle-income renters and driven rents higher. With limited space to build on and tight regulations, the short supply of housing in the city has only made matters worse.

Competition for each apartment is so fierce that landlords can afford to be more selective about tenants, said Mark Campana, president of Anchor Realty, which does not allow pets in any of its roughly 1,000 units.

Related: 10 least affordable rental markets

"Now with the market moving with great speed and with vacant units in high demand, an owner doesn't have the incentive to be pet-friendly," said Campana.

Michael Harrington, president of Pacific Union Property Management, said that while some landlords may be flexible about allowing small dogs, they know they can always find another tenant without an animal.

"We're definitely in what I would call a landlord's market," said Harrington.

Sam the chihuahua was left at the SPCA by an owner who couldn't find pet-friendly housing.

Just because a unit is advertised as pet-friendly doesn't mean it will go to a pet owner, said Dr. Emily Weiss, vice president of research and development at ASPCA.

That might explain why data from online rental listing company, Lovely, showed that the percentage of listings that said they allowed "some pets" actually grew from 34% to 39% between 2012 and 2014.

Pet-friendly options also tend to be more out of reach for low-income renters, said Weiss. According to a recent analysis of listings by HotPads, pet-friendly units in San Francisco cost an average of 12% more than those that don't allow pets. That's compared to a national average of 3.5% in major metro areas, the company found. And that doesn't include pet deposits or additional "pet rent," which may be required on top of normal rent.

San Francisco even lags behind New York City, where the share of dog-friendly apartments is almost three times higher and just over half of all landlords allow "some pets," according to Lovely. Yet, pet ownership in the city has long faced the same challenges that the SPCA is seeing in San Francisco, said Sandra DeFeo, executive director of the Humane Society of New York.

"People with more means tend to find places that will accept them with pets," she said.

Jackie Tom, president of leasing company RentalsinSF, said it was hard enough finding an apartment that would accept her Great Dane 15 years ago. Today, the market is even more stressful and more expensive for pet owners, she said.

"There are a lot of wonderful pet owners and not enough affordable housing for them," said Tom, who manages 35 pet-friendly units in the city. "They can keep their pets, but there is a price."

Related: 'Why I have a roommate at my age'

Eric Andresen, president of the San Francisco Apartment Association and Viking Services Corp., which manages about 2,300 housing units in the area, said he would be surprised if the housing crunch really made the city less pet-friendly overall.

He notes that many residents have learned to skirt landlords' pet restrictions by claiming their pets as assistance animals, abusing laws meant to help people with disabilities. The problem has become so widespread in recent years that Andresen recommends landlords simply allow pets so they have some control over the animals in their buildings.

"Then at least you can protect yourself with a pet deposit," said Andresen. "And it certainly puts your relationship with your tenant in a more cooperative place."

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 7:54 PM ET

17.42 | 0 komentar | Read More

MSNBC says 'prime time lineup is solid'

Maybe, but the channel is pushing back against a report that Rachel Maddow is about to replace one of her proteges, Chris Hayes.

However, change is definitely afoot at the network, as demonstrated by Thursday's twin cancellations of "Ronan Farrow Daily" and "The Reid Report."

MSNBC is searching for solutions to a ratings deficit that seems to worsen with each passing month. Lately the channel has been averaging just 60,000 to 80,000 viewers ages 25 to 54 on weekdays. CNN, the parent of this web site, usually averages more than twice as many viewers in that demographic; Fox News often times averages four times as many.

So what's MSNBC going to do? Among staffers, there is rampant uncertainty.

On Friday, representatives for the channel reiterated that it will continue to "Lean Forward" -- its slogan that sums up its progressive point of view -- while trying to broaden its coverage beyond politics.

An MSNBC spokesperson refuted that the goal is to "move away from left-wing TV," a claim made by an "MSNBC source" to The Daily Beast.

That Daily Beast report also said "two well-placed sources" predicted that Maddow would take Hayes' slot, and that a search is underway for a new 9 p.m. host.

The report sent a shiver through some corners of MSNBC on Thursday night, given how close Hayes and Maddow are. The two hosts share an agent -- and a cerebral liberal sensibility.

"Contrary to the rumors from unnamed sources, we have no plans to take Chris Hayes' show off the air, or move Rachel Maddow's show," an MSNBC spokesperson said Friday. "Our prime time lineup is solid."

Staffers at the 8 p.m. show do not feel they're on solid ground, however. It is possible the show will be shifted to some other time slot.

Hayes' show, "All In," is the most recent addition to MSNBC's prime time lineup -- it was launched in the spring of 2013 after Hayes had a successful run on weekend mornings.

In the press, "All In" has been portrayed as faltering, and several staffers involved with the show, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they've felt unfairly targeted, considering the channel's across-the-board ratings struggles.

On Thursday, for instance, Chris Matthews drew 104,000 viewers ages 25 to 54 at 7 p.m., Hayes had 109,000 at 8 p.m., Maddow had 116,000 at 9 p.m., and Lawrence O'Donnell had 90,000 at 10 p.m.

Some nights are worse for Hayes; he generally loses a bit of the prior hour's audience. Then again, he's been in the job for about two years, while Matthews has been a fixture on MSNBC for well over a decade.

One MSNBC staffer who has worked with Hayes bemoaned "the 8 o'clock time slot problem -- nobody's ever been able to draw the ratings that I think [MSNBC president] Phil Griffin wants to see."

The ultimate calculation, about Hayes and about every other cable news host, is this: Does management think another host could reliably attract a bigger audience?

No more talent changes are believed to be imminent, but there will be more. Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid, two of the channel's lowest-rated hosts, will be replaced by news anchor Thomas Roberts next month, the channel confirmed on Thursday.

The replacement of two strong progressive voices for Roberts was interpreted by some as a step away from liberal politics, at least during the workday.

On the other hand, this week's appointment of Bravo TV star Tom Colicchio as MSNBC's "food correspondent" might be a signal of what's to come. The channel called it part of a "larger strategy to cover a broader set of stories that move and inspire Americans through its progressive lens."

Ultimately, MSNBC may be trying to pull off something quite tricky -- encouraging its loyal and mostly liberal fans to stick around while welcoming new viewers who aren't as fervent about politics, policy or President Obama.

Griffin said in an end-of-2014 memo that in 2015, "we're going to get on the road -- and outside of Washington -- a lot more."

"We're going to keep opening up our aperture, while investing in original reporting on the broad range of stories that move and inspire Americans," he wrote. "And we're going to use new technologies, events and creative tools to engage and mobilize our passionate audience."

MSNBC executives portrayed the Colicchio announcement as the first of several such announcements to come.

Hayes, who has declined to comment on the speculation about the fate of his show, did tweet a nod to The Daily Beast report. On Friday afternoon he wrote: "Tonight we'll probably talk about why going to war in Iraq again is a bad idea," and he added the hashtag "#leftwingTV."

More Media: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

CNNMoney (New York) February 21, 2015: 3:59 PM ET

17.42 | 0 komentar | Read More

No dogs allowed: San Francisco's pet housing crisis

According to San Francisco animal welfare nonprofit SF SPCA, there's been a surge in owners abandoning their pets due to an inability to find pet-friendly housing.

Over the last year, one in four people who left pets with the organization cited problems finding pet-friendly housing. The organization started tracking the numbers this year after staff noticed that housing issues were becoming an increasingly common problem, according to spokesperson Krista Maloney.

An influx of highly-paid tech workers in recent years have pushed out many low- and middle-income renters and driven rents higher. With limited space to build on and tight regulations, the short supply of housing in the city has only made matters worse.

Competition for each apartment is so fierce that landlords can afford to be more selective about tenants, said Mark Campana, president of Anchor Realty, which does not allow pets in any of its roughly 1,000 units.

Related: 10 least affordable rental markets

"Now with the market moving with great speed and with vacant units in high demand, an owner doesn't have the incentive to be pet-friendly," said Campana.

Michael Harrington, president of Pacific Union Property Management, said that while some landlords may be flexible about allowing small dogs, they know they can always find another tenant without an animal.

"We're definitely in what I would call a landlord's market," said Harrington.

Sam the chihuahua was left at the SPCA by an owner who couldn't find pet-friendly housing.

Just because a unit is advertised as pet-friendly doesn't mean it will go to a pet owner, said Dr. Emily Weiss, vice president of research and development at ASPCA.

That might explain why data from online rental listing company, Lovely, showed that the percentage of listings that said they allowed "some pets" actually grew from 34% to 39% between 2012 and 2014.

Pet-friendly options also tend to be more out of reach for low-income renters, said Weiss. According to a recent analysis of listings by HotPads, pet-friendly units in San Francisco cost an average of 12% more than those that don't allow pets. That's compared to a national average of 3.5% in major metro areas, the company found. And that doesn't include pet deposits or additional "pet rent," which may be required on top of normal rent.

San Francisco even lags behind New York City, where the share of dog-friendly apartments is almost three times higher and just over half of all landlords allow "some pets," according to Lovely. Yet, pet ownership in the city has long faced the same challenges that the SPCA is seeing in San Francisco, said Sandra DeFeo, executive director of the Humane Society of New York.

"People with more means tend to find places that will accept them with pets," she said.

Jackie Tom, president of leasing company RentalsinSF, said it was hard enough finding an apartment that would accept her Great Dane 15 years ago. Today, the market is even more stressful and more expensive for pet owners, she said.

"There are a lot of wonderful pet owners and not enough affordable housing for them," said Tom, who manages 35 pet-friendly units in the city. "They can keep their pets, but there is a price."

Related: 'Why I have a roommate at my age'

Eric Andresen, president of the San Francisco Apartment Association and Viking Services Corp., which manages about 2,300 housing units in the area, said he would be surprised if the housing crunch really made the city less pet-friendly overall.

He notes that many residents have learned to skirt landlords' pet restrictions by claiming their pets as assistance animals, abusing laws meant to help people with disabilities. The problem has become so widespread in recent years that Andresen recommends landlords simply allow pets so they have some control over the animals in their buildings.

"Then at least you can protect yourself with a pet deposit," said Andresen. "And it certainly puts your relationship with your tenant in a more cooperative place."

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 7:54 PM ET

15.30 | 0 komentar | Read More

What Bill O'Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War

That's the central question raised by Mother Jones in a report published Thursday, and the answer appears to be both yes and no.

The Fox News host insists he never said he was in the Falkland Islands during the conflict. As a reporter for CBS News at the time, O'Reilly and his colleagues were based in Buenos Aires, far from the war zone in and around the islands.

Some of O'Reilly's accounts stem from a protest that occurred in Buenos Aires at the time, though that wouldn't qualify as a war zone.

As longtime CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer told Mother Jones, "Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands... For us, you were a thousand miles from where the fighting was."

Here is the public record of what O'Reilly has said:

2001: O'Reilly wrote in his book, "The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America," that his time covering war made him ready for anything. "You know that I am not easily shocked," he wrote. "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands, and in chaotic situations like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles."

2004: In his syndicated column, O'Reilly recalled how he had "survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War." He was presumably referring to a protest he covered in Buenos Aires, but his reference to a "combat situation" could reasonably be interpreted as a "war zone."

2008: Seven years ago on the "O'Reilly Factor," the host invoked his experience "in the war zones" to taunt Bill Moyers, the veteran journalist with whom he's feuded for years. "By the way, I missed Moyers in the war zones of the Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland," O'Reilly said. "I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him."

2013: During an interview on his Fox News show, O'Reilly once again described the protest but said it took place "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands."

"Because I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete," O'Reilly told his guest.

The Falklands War 1982: Very few journalists made it inside the war zone to cover the conflict.

Some of O'Reilly's statements seem much less questionable.

2009: During an on-air segment with Bernard Goldberg, himself a former CBS News journalist, O'Reilly said that the network "sent me to El Salvador and to cover the Falkland Islands war in Argentina.

2011: After reading an email from a viewer who was honeymooning down in Argentina, O'Reilly noted his history with the region.

"Tell everybody down there I covered the Falklands War," he told the viewer. "They'll remember."

2012: O'Reilly read an email from a viewer based in the Falkland Islands and said he had "a little soft spot" for the region, given that he "covered the Falklands War."

2015: After Mother Jones dogged him all day Thursday for a response, O'Reilly casually -- and carefully -- invoked his assignment in Argentina.

"When I was at the network news, when there was a conflict, a war, any kind of really violent crime spree, whatever, they're all over it," O'Reilly told Goldberg. "I mean, even minor wars, like the Falklands War -- you know, I was down there in Argentina and Uruguay. The Salvadoran War, I was there. When Grenada hit, there was big coverage of Grenada. All of that."

A little later in the segment, perhaps anticipating the Mother Jones report, O'Reilly clarified his earlier comments.

"I didn't go to Grenada. I want to make that clear to everybody," O'Reilly said, while laughing. "I don't want to get in trouble. But I was in Salvador and Argentina."

Related: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

Related: Mother Jones demands apology

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 6:46 PM ET

15.30 | 0 komentar | Read More

MSNBC says 'prime time lineup is solid'

Maybe, but the channel is pushing back against a report that Rachel Maddow is about to replace one of her proteges, Chris Hayes.

However, change is definitely afoot at the network, as demonstrated by Thursday's twin cancellations of "Ronan Farrow Daily" and "The Reid Report."

MSNBC is searching for solutions to a ratings deficit that seems to worsen with each passing month. Lately the channel has been averaging just 60,000 to 80,000 viewers ages 25 to 54 on weekdays. CNN, the parent of this web site, usually averages more than twice as many viewers in that demographic; Fox News often times averages four times as many.

So what's MSNBC going to do? Among staffers, there is rampant uncertainty.

On Friday, representatives for the channel reiterated that it will continue to "Lean Forward" -- its slogan that sums up its progressive point of view -- while trying to broaden its coverage beyond politics.

An MSNBC spokesperson refuted that the goal is to "move away from left-wing TV," a claim made by an "MSNBC source" to The Daily Beast.

That Daily Beast report also said "two well-placed sources" predicted that Maddow would take Hayes' slot, and that a search is underway for a new 9 p.m. host.

The report sent a shiver through some corners of MSNBC on Thursday night, given how close Hayes and Maddow are. The two hosts share an agent -- and a cerebral liberal sensibility.

"Contrary to the rumors from unnamed sources, we have no plans to take Chris Hayes' show off the air, or move Rachel Maddow's show," an MSNBC spokesperson said Friday. "Our prime time lineup is solid."

Staffers at the 8 p.m. show do not feel they're on solid ground, however. It is possible the show will be shifted to some other time slot.

Hayes' show, "All In," is the most recent addition to MSNBC's prime time lineup -- it was launched in the spring of 2013 after Hayes had a successful run on weekend mornings.

In the press, "All In" has been portrayed as faltering, and several staffers involved with the show, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they've felt unfairly targeted, considering the channel's across-the-board ratings struggles.

On Thursday, for instance, Chris Matthews drew 104,000 viewers ages 25 to 54 at 7 p.m., Hayes had 109,000 at 8 p.m., Maddow had 116,000 at 9 p.m., and Lawrence O'Donnell had 90,000 at 10 p.m.

Some nights are worse for Hayes; he generally loses a bit of the prior hour's audience. Then again, he's been in the job for about two years, while Matthews has been a fixture on MSNBC for well over a decade.

One MSNBC staffer who has worked with Hayes bemoaned "the 8 o'clock time slot problem -- nobody's ever been able to draw the ratings that I think [MSNBC president] Phil Griffin wants to see."

The ultimate calculation, about Hayes and about every other cable news host, is this: Does management think another host could reliably attract a bigger audience?

No more talent changes are believed to be imminent, but there will be more. Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid, two of the channel's lowest-rated hosts, will be replaced by news anchor Thomas Roberts next month, the channel confirmed on Thursday.

The replacement of two strong progressive voices for Roberts was interpreted by some as a step away from liberal politics, at least during the workday.

On the other hand, this week's appointment of Bravo TV star Tom Colicchio as MSNBC's "food correspondent" might be a signal of what's to come. The channel called it part of a "larger strategy to cover a broader set of stories that move and inspire Americans through its progressive lens."

Ultimately, MSNBC may be trying to pull off something quite tricky -- encouraging its loyal and mostly liberal fans to stick around while welcoming new viewers who aren't as fervent about politics, policy or President Obama.

Griffin said in an end-of-2014 memo that in 2015, "we're going to get on the road -- and outside of Washington -- a lot more."

"We're going to keep opening up our aperture, while investing in original reporting on the broad range of stories that move and inspire Americans," he wrote. "And we're going to use new technologies, events and creative tools to engage and mobilize our passionate audience."

MSNBC executives portrayed the Colicchio announcement as the first of several such announcements to come.

Hayes, who has declined to comment on the speculation about the fate of his show, did tweet a nod to The Daily Beast report. On Friday afternoon he wrote: "Tonight we'll probably talk about why going to war in Iraq again is a bad idea," and he added the hashtag "#leftwingTV."

More Media: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

CNNMoney (New York) February 21, 2015: 3:59 PM ET

15.30 | 0 komentar | Read More

What Bill O'Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War

That's the central question raised by Mother Jones in a report published Thursday, and the answer appears to be both yes and no.

The Fox News host insists he never said he was in the Falkland Islands during the conflict. As a reporter for CBS News at the time, O'Reilly and his colleagues were based in Buenos Aires, far from the war zone in and around the islands.

Some of O'Reilly's accounts stem from a protest that occurred in Buenos Aires at the time, though that wouldn't qualify as a war zone.

As longtime CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer told Mother Jones, "Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands... For us, you were a thousand miles from where the fighting was."

Here is the public record of what O'Reilly has said:

2001: O'Reilly wrote in his book, "The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America," that his time covering war made him ready for anything. "You know that I am not easily shocked," he wrote. "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands, and in chaotic situations like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles."

2004: In his syndicated column, O'Reilly recalled how he had "survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War." He was presumably referring to a protest he covered in Buenos Aires, but his reference to a "combat situation" could reasonably be interpreted as a "war zone."

2008: Seven years ago on the "O'Reilly Factor," the host invoked his experience "in the war zones" to taunt Bill Moyers, the veteran journalist with whom he's feuded for years. "By the way, I missed Moyers in the war zones of the Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland," O'Reilly said. "I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him."

2013: During an interview on his Fox News show, O'Reilly once again described the protest but said it took place "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands."

"Because I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete," O'Reilly told his guest.

The Falklands War 1982: Very few journalists made it inside the war zone to cover the conflict.

Some of O'Reilly's statements seem much less questionable.

2009: During an on-air segment with Bernard Goldberg, himself a former CBS News journalist, O'Reilly said that the network "sent me to El Salvador and to cover the Falkland Islands war in Argentina.

2011: After reading an email from a viewer who was honeymooning down in Argentina, O'Reilly noted his history with the region.

"Tell everybody down there I covered the Falklands War," he told the viewer. "They'll remember."

2012: O'Reilly read an email from a viewer based in the Falkland Islands and said he had "a little soft spot" for the region, given that he "covered the Falklands War."

2015: After Mother Jones dogged him all day Thursday for a response, O'Reilly casually -- and carefully -- invoked his assignment in Argentina.

"When I was at the network news, when there was a conflict, a war, any kind of really violent crime spree, whatever, they're all over it," O'Reilly told Goldberg. "I mean, even minor wars, like the Falklands War -- you know, I was down there in Argentina and Uruguay. The Salvadoran War, I was there. When Grenada hit, there was big coverage of Grenada. All of that."

A little later in the segment, perhaps anticipating the Mother Jones report, O'Reilly clarified his earlier comments.

"I didn't go to Grenada. I want to make that clear to everybody," O'Reilly said, while laughing. "I don't want to get in trouble. But I was in Salvador and Argentina."

Related: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

Related: Mother Jones demands apology

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 6:46 PM ET

17.42 | 0 komentar | Read More

MSNBC says 'prime time lineup is solid'

Maybe, but the channel is pushing back against a report that Rachel Maddow is about to replace one of her proteges, Chris Hayes.

However, change is definitely afoot at the network, as demonstrated by Thursday's twin cancellations of "Ronan Farrow Daily" and "The Reid Report."

MSNBC is searching for solutions to a ratings deficit that seems to worsen with each passing month. Lately the channel has been averaging just 60,000 to 80,000 viewers ages 25 to 54 on weekdays. CNN, the parent of this web site, usually averages more than twice as many viewers in that demographic; Fox News often times averages four times as many.

So what's MSNBC going to do? Among staffers, there is rampant uncertainty.

On Friday, representatives for the channel reiterated that it will continue to "Lean Forward" -- its slogan that sums up its progressive point of view -- while trying to broaden its coverage beyond politics.

An MSNBC spokesperson refuted that the goal is to "move away from left-wing TV," a claim made by an "MSNBC source" to The Daily Beast.

That Daily Beast report also said "two well-placed sources" predicted that Maddow would take Hayes' slot, and that a search is underway for a new 9 p.m. host.

The report sent a shiver through MSNBC on Thursday night, given how close Hayes and Maddow are. The two hosts share an agent -- and a cerebral liberal sensibility.

"Contrary to the rumors from unnamed sources, we have no plans to take Chris Hayes' show off the air, or move Rachel Maddow's show," an MSNBC spokesperson said Friday. "Our prime time lineup is solid."

Staffers at the 8 p.m. show do not feel they're on solid ground, however. It is possible the show will be shifted to some other time slot.

Hayes' show, "All In," is the most recent addition to MSNBC's prime time lineup -- it was launched in the spring of 2013 after Hayes had a successful run on weekend mornings.

In the press, "All In" has been portrayed as faltering, and several staffers involved with the show, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they've felt unfairly targeted, considering the channel's across-the-board ratings struggles.

On Thursday, for instance, Chris Matthews drew 104,000 viewers ages 25 to 54 at 7 p.m., Hayes had 109,000 at 8 p.m., Maddow had 116,000 at 9 p.m., and Lawrence O'Donnell had 90,000 at 10 p.m.

Some nights are worse for Hayes; he generally loses a bit of the prior hour's audience. Then again, he's been in the job for about two years, while Matthews has been a fixture on MSNBC for well over a decade.

One MSNBC staffer who has worked with Hayes bemoaned "the 8 o'clock time slot problem -- nobody's ever been able to draw the ratings that I think [MSNBC president] Phil Griffin wants to see."

The ultimate calculation, about Hayes and about every other cable news host, is this: Does management think another host could reliably attract a bigger audience?

No more talent changes are believed to be imminent, but there will be more. Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid, two of the channel's lowest-rated hosts, will be replaced by news anchor Thomas Roberts next month, the channel confirmed on Thursday.

The replacement of two strong progressive voices for Roberts was interpreted by some as a step away from liberal politics, at least during the workday.

On the other hand, this week's appointment of Bravo TV star Tom Colicchio as MSNBC's "food correspondent" might be a signal of what's to come. The channel called it part of a "larger strategy to cover a broader set of stories that move and inspire Americans through its progressive lens."

Ultimately, MSNBC may be trying to pull off something quite tricky -- encouraging its loyal and mostly liberal fans to stick around while welcoming new viewers who aren't as fervent about politics, policy or President Obama.

Hayes, who has declined to comment on the speculation about the fate of his show, did tweet a nod to The Daily Beast report on Friday afternoon. He wrote: "Tonight we'll probably talk about why going to war in Iraq again is a bad idea," and he added the hashtag "#leftwingTV."

More Media: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 7:16 PM ET

17.42 | 0 komentar | Read More

No dogs allowed: San Francisco's pet housing crisis

According to San Francisco animal welfare nonprofit SF SPCA, there's been a surge in owners abandoning their pets due to an inability to find pet-friendly housing.

Over the last year, one in four people who left pets with the organization cited problems finding pet-friendly housing. The organization started tracking the numbers this year after staff noticed that housing issues were becoming an increasingly common problem, according to spokesperson Krista Maloney.

An influx of highly-paid tech workers in recent years have pushed out many low- and middle-income renters and driven rents higher. With limited space to build on and tight regulations, the short supply of housing in the city has only made matters worse.

Competition for each apartment is so fierce that landlords can afford to be more selective about tenants, said Mark Campana, president of Anchor Realty, which does not allow pets in any of its roughly 1,000 units.

Related: 10 least affordable rental markets

"Now with the market moving with great speed and with vacant units in high demand, an owner doesn't have the incentive to be pet-friendly," said Campana.

Michael Harrington, president of Pacific Union Property Management, said that while some landlords may be flexible about allowing small dogs, they know they can always find another tenant without an animal.

"We're definitely in what I would call a landlord's market," said Harrington.

Sam the chihuahua was left at the SPCA by an owner who couldn't find pet-friendly housing.

Just because a unit is advertised as pet-friendly doesn't mean it will go to a pet owner, said Dr. Emily Weiss, vice president of research and development at ASPCA.

That might explain why data from online rental listing company, Lovely, showed that the percentage of listings that said they allowed "some pets" actually grew from 34% to 39% between 2012 and 2014.

Pet-friendly options also tend to be more out of reach for low-income renters, said Weiss. According to a recent analysis of listings by HotPads, pet-friendly units in San Francisco cost an average of 12% more than those that don't allow pets. That's compared to a national average of 3.5% in major metro areas, the company found. And that doesn't include pet deposits or additional "pet rent," which may be required on top of normal rent.

San Francisco even lags behind New York City, where the share of dog-friendly apartments is almost three times higher and just over half of all landlords allow "some pets," according to Lovely. Yet, pet ownership in the city has long faced the same challenges that the SPCA is seeing in San Francisco, said Sandra DeFeo, executive director of the Humane Society of New York.

"People with more means tend to find places that will accept them with pets," she said.

Jackie Tom, president of leasing company RentalsinSF, said it was hard enough finding an apartment that would accept her Great Dane 15 years ago. Today, the market is even more stressful and more expensive for pet owners, she said.

"There are a lot of wonderful pet owners and not enough affordable housing for them," said Tom, who manages 35 pet-friendly units in the city. "They can keep their pets, but there is a price."

Related: 'Why I have a roommate at my age'

Eric Andresen, president of the San Francisco Apartment Association and Viking Services Corp., which manages about 2,300 housing units in the area, said he would be surprised if the housing crunch really made the city less pet-friendly overall.

He notes that many residents have learned to skirt landlords' pet restrictions by claiming their pets as assistance animals, abusing laws meant to help people with disabilities. The problem has become so widespread in recent years that Andresen recommends landlords simply allow pets so they have some control over the animals in their buildings.

"Then at least you can protect yourself with a pet deposit," said Andresen. "And it certainly puts your relationship with your tenant in a more cooperative place."

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 7:54 PM ET

17.42 | 0 komentar | Read More

What Bill O'Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War

That's the central question raised by Mother Jones in a report published Thursday, and the answer appears to be both yes and no.

The Fox News host insists he never said he was in the Falkland Islands during the conflict. As a reporter for CBS News at the time, O'Reilly and his colleagues were based in Buenos Aires, far from the war zone in and around the islands.

Some of O'Reilly's accounts stem from a protest that occurred in Buenos Aires at the time, though that wouldn't qualify as a war zone.

As longtime CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer told Mother Jones, "Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands... For us, you were a thousand miles from where the fighting was."

Here is the public record of what O'Reilly has said:

2001: O'Reilly wrote in his book, "The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America," that his time covering war made him ready for anything. "You know that I am not easily shocked," he wrote. "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands, and in chaotic situations like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles."

2004: In his syndicated column, O'Reilly recalled how he had "survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War." He was presumably referring to a protest he covered in Buenos Aires, but his reference to a "combat situation" could reasonably be interpreted as a "war zone."

2008: Seven years ago on the "O'Reilly Factor," the host invoked his experience "in the war zones" to taunt Bill Moyers, the veteran journalist with whom he's feuded for years. "By the way, I missed Moyers in the war zones of the Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland," O'Reilly said. "I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him."

2013: During an interview on his Fox News show, O'Reilly once again described the protest but said it took place "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands."

"Because I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete," O'Reilly told his guest.

The Falklands War 1982: Very few journalists made it inside the war zone to cover the conflict.

Some of O'Reilly's statements seem much less questionable.

2009: During an on-air segment with Bernard Goldberg, himself a former CBS News journalist, O'Reilly said that the network "sent me to El Salvador and to cover the Falkland Islands war in Argentina.

2011: After reading an email from a viewer who was honeymooning down in Argentina, O'Reilly noted his history with the region.

"Tell everybody down there I covered the Falklands War," he told the viewer. "They'll remember."

2012: O'Reilly read an email from a viewer based in the Falkland Islands and said he had "a little soft spot" for the region, given that he "covered the Falklands War."

2015: After Mother Jones dogged him all day Thursday for a response, O'Reilly casually -- and carefully -- invoked his assignment in Argentina.

"When I was at the network news, when there was a conflict, a war, any kind of really violent crime spree, whatever, they're all over it," O'Reilly told Goldberg. "I mean, even minor wars, like the Falklands War -- you know, I was down there in Argentina and Uruguay. The Salvadoran War, I was there. When Grenada hit, there was big coverage of Grenada. All of that."

A little later in the segment, perhaps anticipating the Mother Jones report, O'Reilly clarified his earlier comments.

"I didn't go to Grenada. I want to make that clear to everybody," O'Reilly said, while laughing. "I don't want to get in trouble. But I was in Salvador and Argentina."

Related: Bill O'Reilly rips Mother Jones again: 'Bottom rung of journalism'

Related: Mother Jones demands apology

CNNMoney (New York) February 20, 2015: 6:46 PM ET

15.30 | 0 komentar | Read More