Whether an accident or intentional, the placing of a picture of President George W. Bush laughing next to the headline "Children May Lose On Insurance" is rather deplorable, especially since the picture was not from the article in question.
However, that's what occurred at Google News' Health section Wednesday morning when the featured article was the Boston Globe's piece by Alice Dembner discussing how "[t]housands of Massachusetts children from low-income families could be denied health insurance under new rules imposed by the Bush administration late last week."
Yet, for some reason, the picture above right, from an article published Tuesday at the website OverTheLimit, was placed next to the Globe's headline, and was actually about a story in the New York Times Monday (emphasis added, h/t reader Lloyd Hohn):
The Bush administration has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for states to extend health coverage to children in middle-income families, The New York Times reported on Monday.
Makes one wonder how this could have been accidental when the article with the picture in question actually was published a day before the featured piece, dontcha think?
Update (Ken Shepherd, 11:24): Below are the picture as captured from Google News and the teaser headline and blurb as Sheppard saw them earlier today. You'll also find some thoughts of mine I decided to fold into Sheppard's post in this update.
You'll notice the photo credit is for the Web site OverTheLimit.info. OverTheLimit's "about us" section describes the mission of the news site:
OverTheLimit is an idependent [sic] online news services covering with the latest news from the United States and around the world.
Unlike other news services, OverTheLimit only offers the news which for one reason-or-another seem to be “over the top.”
The majority of our news is provided by staff writers who are all experts in their respective fields. Our journalists range in age and experience, but all are dedicated to delivering interesting news pieces.
OverTheLimit's coverage of the SCHIP debate certainly skewed leftward. Here's an excerpt from OTL's August 21 article, "The Bush administration makes it difficult for states to extend health coverage to children" which makes it clear the editors feel the Bush administration's position on SCHIP is "over the top" (portions in bold are my emphasis):
The Bush administration has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for states to extend health coverage to children in middle-income families, The New York Times reported on Monday.
On Friday evening, with Congress out of town on its summer recess and Americans heading into a mid-August weekend, the Bush administration sent a message to the states: The federal government will make it tougher for a national children’s insurance program to cover the offspring of middle-income families.
Silly me. I thought the idea of the federal program was to cover children in low-income, not middle-class families. That being the case, means testing to keep the coverage limited to those children and save money might be worthwhile.
But what fun would it be to report THAT side of the story?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Comments Policy
No Accident!
August 22, 2007 - 10:29 ET by mytwocentsThese people are deplorable. I loath and despise them.
Couldn't agree more mytwocents
August 22, 2007 - 11:17 ET by acumenI couldn't agree more mytwocents.
I'm just thankful to God (disclaimer to ACLU - I assure you I mean God in the most inclusive way) my loathing hasn't turned into full blown derangement syndrome as demonstrated daily by the demedia. Tempting as that is.....
It helps to remember these clowns are the same folks that were quietly whispering to themselves from a fetal position under their bed on 9/11; "I sure am glad Bush is president".
There are no accidents...
August 22, 2007 - 10:35 ET by smitty031The first time with CNN and the X maybe...but all the other documented instances...nope. When you say conspiracy make no mistake about it. They know good and well what they are doing in those newsrooms. Whats next...a microphone mistakenly gets left on as GWB uses the mens room during a break in a interview...The shot heard around the world?
I can see the lead in now...
"This just in...George Bush poo's during hurricane crisis in Mexico...blames 3 tacos he had at lunch..."
"Toilet backlash...American Standard stocks hit new low"...so does Google
Then you must accept that
August 22, 2007 - 10:37 ET by balboaThen you must accept that Chelsea/dog picture was no accident, too, right? Right? (He says while beating a horse that's been dead for a long time)
Idiot
August 22, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Sergeant ROCKA reference to the Rush Limbaugh TV show? How lame. Newsflash genious - RUSH IS NOT THE NEWS!!!
(spelling nazi appears) I'd
August 22, 2007 - 10:55 ET by balboa(spelling nazi appears)
I'd feel worse if you hadn't gone with "genious." :-)
elaborate
August 22, 2007 - 10:44 ET by smitty031I havent heard about that...honestly
the horse is dead sure...but we are trying like hell to revive it...
the bias by the msm couldnt be more obvious...Thats why we need to stand up and say " we know what you are doing and you can be stopped"
I am confused. So, you are
August 22, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am confused. So, you are advocating this example of liberal media bias by citing an example of conservative media bias from 10 years ago?
Nobody (okay, maybe 1%) has ever said that media bias is 100% liberal, Bal. Your points is, well, pointless. Try to remember where you are, the point of this website in the future, will ya?
People always like to say
August 22, 2007 - 10:54 ET by balboaPeople always like to say that the dog incident was an accident, "clearly," that Rush didn't know about, and then here we have a couple of instances that people say couldn't have been an accident, so I'm just trying to figure out what can or cannot be an "accident."
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
August 22, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou blathering dolt. Rush Limbaugh is entertainment - NOT THE NEWS! Are you that stupid??? That's the best you can come up with? Pathetic...
Yes, I am that stupid. I
August 22, 2007 - 11:09 ET by balboaYes, I am that stupid. I like to blather on in a doltish fashion. You, on the other hand, are very even-keeled.
Firewalled
August 22, 2007 - 14:17 ET by JDWHow many acquaintances of the Clintons have died? What were their reactions?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Glad you finally admitted
August 22, 2007 - 21:05 ET by bretzysdudeGlad you finally admitted it.
The Rush example may have
August 22, 2007 - 11:01 ET by Hero SquadThe Rush example may have been intentional, it may have been accidental. Either way, Rush isn't part of the main stream media, claiming to be objective.
Actually, comparing the two situations kind of proves the point... that the MSM has steered away from objective reporting, injecting its bias in sometime subtle, but deliberate ways.
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess." - Steve Martin
I know he's not the MSM.
August 22, 2007 - 11:07 ET by balboaI know he's not the MSM. Just making a connection -- tenuous at best -- between the two situations.
Nice try
August 22, 2007 - 11:11 ET by Sergeant ROCKA very poor connection. You fail in your attempt on all counts.
Agreed its a rather tenuous
August 22, 2007 - 11:45 ET by BinxlyAgreed its a rather tenuous connection, but he didn't fail in making a connection. Its ok to disagree with someone sarge but lordy are you ever the angry one these days. I can only imagine how you are in rush hour traffic! haha
That said, Bal, I do gotta side with them too to a degree. Rush is seen, at best, by the masses as a propagandist and cheerleader for the right. I disagree to that point, but the fact remains that this case is more detrimental to getting honesty out there than in Rush's case. Even fans of Rush know to take him with a grain of salt at most if not all times.
Still not legitimate
August 22, 2007 - 11:51 ET by Sergeant ROCKThere's nothing angry about pointing out the obvious. The facts just don't support your assertion that comparing Rush to the MSM as one of the same. You can call it a comparison if you like. Doesn't make it correct or legitimate.
The point isnt what was
August 22, 2007 - 12:02 ET by BinxlyThe point isnt what was 'angry' it was your demeanor. Many people do alot of dumb or incorrect things, but it doesn't warrant that you be equally crass in pointing it out. I was merely stating that your retorts are as of recent, very meanspirited and much so in the vein of 'Im right and YOU are an idiot.'
Idiot or not, acting like a pompous person in your response only further alienates people from your view point. And before you poo-poo what I said and my advice, know that this is comming from someone who actually agrees with your point. Its not your point that is flawed, its your approach. People like discussion, not being lectured as if they were arguing with their father. You'll change more minds with conversation than trying to 'teach.'
But Binxly . .
August 22, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe Sarge IS RIGHT! And they are IDIOTS!
The problem with the Sarge is that he uses only a two-by-four to bang the heads of the libs, he should use a six-by-six.
I know, the echo would probably deafen him.
Yes, THAT's the problem...
August 22, 2007 - 12:24 ET by balboaYes, THAT's the problem...
The Colbert Report used 14 pictures this past week
August 22, 2007 - 12:35 ET by SportPoliticsthat were rude lies against republicans and their children, so in 1/2 a day you libs have surpassed 10 years of Rush mistakes.
So why didn't you point that out balboa ? What's wrong with you ? Are you blind ?
No, I missed that episode
August 22, 2007 - 12:37 ET by balboaNo, I missed that episode of "The Report."
Very convenient answer.
August 22, 2007 - 12:41 ET by SportPoliticsDidn't see Stewart yet this month either, huh. Or maybe for the entire year. Hmmm, the everyday lib action versus once ten years ago.
Zzzz...
August 22, 2007 - 13:42 ET by balboaZzzz...
WAKE UP!
August 22, 2007 - 21:06 ET by bretzysdudeWAKE UP!
Shoo.
August 22, 2007 - 21:11 ET by balboaShoo.
Thanks, Bal
August 22, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Mica the MagnificentMy point exactly. Just the mention of a six-by-six got Bal's attention.
Yes, but that's just because
August 22, 2007 - 13:41 ET by balboaYes, but that's just because of my love for measurements.
6x6's
August 22, 2007 - 12:58 ET by Sergeant ROCKAre too cumbersome to wield.
Approach?
August 22, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Sergeant ROCKI don't care to 'teach' these idiots, but rather defeat them. 'Teach' all you want, squishy. But you cannot reason with the unreasonable. Or is your assertion that we can also 'teach' the Islamists not to blow us up?
You missed the point, not a
August 22, 2007 - 13:24 ET by BinxlyYou missed the point, not a suprise, seeing as you are probably 'reading' posts but in actuality just formulating your response instead of, *gasp* thinking someone of differing viewpoint MIGHT have a point somewhere in their argument. Again, we're on the same page politically for the most part, its just obnoxious when one side claims they are without fault and hold a witchunt on the other side. It isn't 'us VS them' Its truth VS lies. I also said, I agree, this case is far worse than the Chelsea case, all Bal was saying is that conservatives aren't these innocent children who would NEVER take a cheap shot if the liberals left themselves open to it. The truth is, we would, and we have.
And with the 'teach' comment, again, you missed the point and perhaps the boat. Ill try my best to call it back. What I meant is conversation as peers is usually recieved much better, even if viewpoints differ, IF it is approached as a peer to peer conversation/debate. When you go off the hinge telling someone they are an 'IDIOT!!!!' in such a way, its the equivalent of Al Franken inviting guests he detests on to his thankfully short lived radio show and instead of debating them, shouting in their face for 10 minutes of what an idiot they are. In summation, my original point is talking down to people from a 'teacher' perspective (i.e. Im right, you're wrong, you *need* me to teach you cause Im smart and you're inferior.) These are the thoughts people have when someone comes at them in that way. Sure, if Bal or someone else made a BASELESS comment such as 'the government caused 9-11' and offered no backing of such an outlandish claim, then yes, rip them a new one. However, when someone of a differing viewpoint points out our shortcommings in the past, it certainly doesnt equate to the same as the previous example.
Too many of you conservatives here are MORTIFIED to ever admit our side is EVER *not* 100% the correct. We aren't, both sides are flawed, I just happen to believe conservatives are the better of the two and the conservative mindset is a better solution for governing. That being said, going off on people in such a juvenile way simply because they are of different view point certainly doesn't exactly speak well of *your* intelligence. Again, not making any assumptions, just warning you such a crass approach to a minor disagreeance in viewpoint certainly paints you as the less educated and more immature.
Just looking out for ya. Afterall, if a conservative acts like an a$$, I usually have to defend my viewpoints further due to such.
You meant "too many of US
August 22, 2007 - 13:29 ET by TruthMongerYou meant "too many of US conservatives" of course right:)?
Again Binx our job here is to point out major liberal MSM bias...
Not minor conservative non-bias visavi this chelsea thing...but I'm sure you knew that already:)!
Squishy Conservatives
August 22, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, squishy (so-called) conservatives, such as yourself spend the majority of their time (seeminly), defending liberals against being roughed-up by conservatives. You're part of that 'can't we all just along crowd', aren't you?
Your insults aside, the plain ol' fact is that Rush is not the NEWS! Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
listen sarge, Im anything
August 22, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Binxlylisten sarge, Im anything but 'squishy' and I rarely defend liberals if at all. I'm not defending Bal's viewpoints, and may I remind you, if someone disagrees with you on an issue, it doesn't make them 'less' of a conservative nor does it make them a liberal either. As for 'insults' insults is when you attack someone's intellect when that wasnt the topic at hand, or when you say something detrimental about someone in an issue you do not have knowledge of in order to back such claims. All I said was you are very meanspirited, condescending, and you seem much more concerned about 'winning an argument' than the whole *point* of a debate/arguement, which is to find the best case solution to the problem. It seems with you, right or wrong, you only care about people following your solution and seem to have no interest in learning anything yourself as you are too busy telling us who may have even the *slightest* disagreement, or in my case none at all, that we are not as wise as you and therefore deserve a 2x4 or 6x6 to the head. I understand most others here posted such in jest, but your hot button attitude and temper concerns me, that is all.
And yes TM, I should edit that, 'US conservatives' haha. I think I did refer to that later in the initial post though when I said that Sarge's approach further alienates the left and the center from the common-sensical viewpoints of us conservatives and when discussion comes up of political nature I have to defend myself to tear down the assumption that all conservatives are children who plug their ears and scream their point out till everyone just gives up or goes deaf, ala Sarge's approach.
Again Sarge, Im not making this a personal thing, Im just thinking you can help alot more dim wit libs and on the fence people by readjusting your approach rather than just verbally mauling them when they disagree. Again, in this debate, from an objective point of view, my politics aside (as I agree with your point that this is much worse than the Rush case of Chelsea) I still think Id side with Bal, if anything merely based on the principle that from square one you've made it a personal attack of his intellect and character and he has yet to stoop to that level of name calling.
You're losing more fans than gaining with that approach, and although its not a popularity contest when deciding whats right and wrong, you'll lose more supporters than gain by telling them they are idiots if they don't get the point the first time around. Im sure someone of even your magnificent character has had to try things a couple times before getting it right. Imagine if you had a voice berating you each time you ever failed at anything, it'd be quite counterproductive, dontcha think?
Squishy..
August 22, 2007 - 14:41 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou're spinning like a top. The 'issue' that you're wringing your hands over is whether or the stated bias of an entertainment TV show is the same as the unstated bias of a TV NEWS broadcast. It is not. That's a simple fact, why can't you grasp that?? Assailing my character doesn't diminish this fact whatsoever. Me screaming it or whispering it does not change that conclusion either.
So, had this been a discussion about an opinion like say, who is the better football team - you might have a point. But here, you do not. Which is why you quickly diverted to 'the meanspirited' drivel.
If some liberal equates Rush to mainstream news, there's no reasoning with that kind of idiocy. Had you spent the time 'teaching' this liberal instead of berating me, you might've had a convert by now.
I'm not equating Rush to
August 22, 2007 - 14:51 ET by balboaI'm not equating Rush to MSM. I'm saying a "mistake" by a TV show, such as the X, such as the laughing photo, falls in the same category of "mistake" as Chelsea and the dog photo
Mistakes?
August 22, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKI would wager neither was mistake. And we're back to square one - One show is ENTERTAIMENT, the other a NEWS BROADCAST.
I know one was news and one
August 22, 2007 - 15:24 ET by balboaI know one was news and one was entertainment. They're both media. I'm saying if you think it's possible that one could have been done on purpose, could you assume the same of the other? Both assume someone behind the scenes doing something shady.
Bal, seriously, as much as
August 22, 2007 - 14:55 ET by BinxlyBal, seriously, as much as your views can give me a headache, let me just give my advice to give up on arguing or debating or whatever the hell you call it with Srgt Rock. On planet Rock there is no other opinions that are valid but his. Its like trying to reason with a child.
Rock, best of luck with that attitude, my prayers are with ya. Here's to hoping next time someone provides some constructive criticism the man upstairs can instill enough humility for you to perhaps listen. On that note, I'm quite done with this, I dont like the mud I get on my shoes when I stoop to this level in a debate anyways.
Ha ha Binxly
August 22, 2007 - 15:01 ET by RJAin't you the dainty one? Spreading your own mud and then complaining about the dirt.
Bal is just as stubborn as Rock. He just has a different personality. ;^>
Your squishy holiness
August 22, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Sergeant ROCKSave your sanctimonious claptrap already. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Your new tagline: Have you hugged a liberal today?
group hug this or woodshed
August 22, 2007 - 15:04 ET by TruthMongergroup hug this or woodshed it people:)
Let's hug it out, bitch
August 22, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Jack BauerEdit
August 22, 2007 - 15:08 ET by Sergeant ROCKEDIT: Have you hugged a liberal and berated a conservative today?
careful - no unplanned
August 22, 2007 - 15:15 ET by TruthMongercareful - no unplanned pregnancies pleez
Grr. Rock angry.
August 22, 2007 - 15:24 ET by balboaGrr. Rock angry.
zing
August 22, 2007 - 15:27 ET by Free Stinker:-)
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
I don't see any hypocrisy
August 22, 2007 - 15:26 ET by BinxlyI don't see any hypocrisy in what I said. Again, if you told Bal simply that the coorelation is wrong, which you did, there would be no problem, that much IS true. You are correct, the MSM during a *news broadcast* is a VERY different example of journalism and expected respect to being unbiased than an opinion and entertainment show like Rush. That wasn't what I said. I said attacking someone's intellect and talking in such a rude fashion *is* a bit much and will further alienate people to your opinion and perhaps you in general. Now, I did say some things about you, such as you are mean spirited and rude, however, unlike your comments, my comments are evident in your post. At worst, Bal is splitting hairs to prove his bigger point of the fact that BOTH conservatives and libs will take cheap shots when possible, he didn't say it was the same example of irresponsible journalism in Rush's case is it was in the case at hand, he merely said the connection proves both sides take swipes at another and that *is* true.
Saying Im a hypocrite would be to imply that Im hypocritical for pointing out that you stoop to the level of name calling unwarrentedly when Im doing the same, yet, that isnt the case. Bal says something you disagree with so you #1 disprove it, and #2 add in a cheap shot about him being dumb. All I did was point out what you already have. Bal, albeit mislead, is not automatically 'uneducated' or 'dumb' because he holds a different viewpoint, there's a difference between being ignorant and merely being mislead. For what its worth, Bal seems like quite a smart guy politics aside.
Again though, I fail to see how me calling you mean-spirited and only concerned about winning an argument when you've pretty much proven that to be fact by saying things like 'I dont care about teaching, I care about defeating them.' Also when you call people names that are totally unrelated to the original point, that's quite juvenile, something a child would do or something someone would do when someone gets under their skin. Like I said, Im only calling it how its already been said. If Bal had said he was an 'IDIOT!!' or a 'dolt' then I wouldnt have responded how I did, because he would've already conceeded to such points. He didnt, therefore you stooping to that level is meanspirited and juvenile. Me calling an act what it is is hardly the same as you calling someone names because they don't agree with you.
And it is one worth making,
August 22, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Hero SquadAnd it is one worth making, certainly from the "bias of the content" perspective.
Regardless
August 22, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe simple fact is that one doesn't hide the "bias of content", the other does. So, it is not a good comparison.
I didn't intend to get into
August 22, 2007 - 11:22 ET by motherbeltI didn't intend to get into this, but Balboa, isn't it a bit silly to make a connection, and then admit that it's "tenuous at best"? What's the point???
Because the connection can
August 22, 2007 - 11:32 ET by balboaBecause the connection can be made? Besides, I enjoy the banter.
had your fun now,
August 22, 2007 - 11:40 ET by TruthMongerhad your fun now, bal:)?
are you also into S&M:)?
I believe it was Mark Twain
August 22, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberI believe it was Mark Twain who said:
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...
Rog, "Veneration of Mark
August 22, 2007 - 11:59 ET by LeonRog,
"Veneration of Mark Twain is one of the roots of our current intellectual stalemate"
Leon
August 22, 2007 - 13:38 ET by Free StinkerSimple & Plain
I agree. I think everybody
August 22, 2007 - 17:06 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. I think everybody should take the word of a guy who wrote one book (and it didn't even get published until a decade after his death) over Mark Twain.
You are seriously off your game today, Hater. I expect at least some kind of fight, not the slapping-like-a-pussy-in-a-fetal-position defense you are offering today.
I normally wouldn't bother taking you to the woodshed for a second time today, but since you are intent on being Balboa's bulldagger, I leave you with another quote: "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting".
Yes, but I believe it was
August 22, 2007 - 12:01 ET by balboaYes, but I believe it was Socrates who said...
"I drank what?"
which sarc has also been
August 22, 2007 - 13:32 ET by TruthMongerwhich sarc has also been know to say quite frequently:)
mb, Balboa excels at the
August 22, 2007 - 11:40 ET by Chris Normanmb,
Balboa excels at the tenuous...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Next
August 22, 2007 - 14:57 ET by Sergeant ROCKNext will be his tenuous comparison of GITMO to the Soviet stalags. Or did I miss that comparison already?
I don't see the
August 23, 2007 - 08:41 ET by kathleenirishI don't see the comparison. It wasn't a conservative that decided to put Chelsea and a dog together necessarily. It was a mean person, period. Definitely a man, I'm sure. It seems to be a crime to men if a woman isn't hot and good-looking, so it's okay to mock her. Politics have nothing to do with it.
And you are still weak as water, Lukewarm.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Guffaw to follow
August 22, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe anniversary of Sept 11 is coming up. I'm sure they have plans for that picture.
Plans
August 22, 2007 - 10:55 ET by CaringwhiteguyMica-We might not see the "smiling face", but you can bet we'll see a number of "retrospectives" showing the President reading to the kids in that classroom. (Of course implying that W had no clue what was going on, or knew what was going on and was afraid to budge, or knew what was going on and didn't care).
USA today is the master of
August 22, 2007 - 11:06 ET by buddycUSA today is the master of this. Time/Newsweek started it. USA took it to new levels.
References...
August 22, 2007 - 11:10 ET by JDWRemember Bubba walking away from the funeral laughing and telling jokes?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
You bet!
August 22, 2007 - 11:22 ET by Mica the MagnificentYes, I do. And when he looked and saw the cameras on him, he instantly pouted and faked his tears.
Ah, yes. Can America survive 8 years of the Clintonette?
Ron Brown's funeral.
August 22, 2007 - 14:21 ET by well99Ron Brown's funeral.
http://www.youtube.com
Some of the Bush Haters
August 22, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Chris NormanSome of the Bush Haters probably do believe he, Cheney, and Rove laugh maniacally while "cutting" programs for "the children, women, and the poor", plotting to destroy world "peace", etc...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Some of the Bush haters
August 23, 2007 - 09:36 ET by well99Would believe he was responsible for Pompeii,The Black Death in in the 1300s,and kicking over their garbage can.Extremist right or left got to love em....Naaah
Sigh. You sheeple just
August 23, 2007 - 10:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberSigh.
You sheeple just don't get it.
Karl Rove resigned to devote 100% of his time and energy on the Karl Rove Time Machine. He did do all those things. Geesh.
Wow
August 23, 2007 - 11:13 ET by well99Cool now I know who to blame for the Great Irish Famine in the late 1840s.Also would like to know if he had any part in sinking the Titanic.Was this global warming set up by Karl Rove?Was he trying to take out Lenardo what his name?Did he help the Greeks against the Trojans because he thought that Trojans promoted promiscuity?
Karl Rove thinks
August 23, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberKarl Rove thinks big.
London burns down in 1666: Rove
Hindenberg: not Rove
Lusitania sinks: Rove
Titanic: Doubtful, although Karl might have wanted to see Kate Winslett's breastages, so you might be right.