Alexandra Zapruder, granddaughter of Abraham Zapruder, is coming to Houston this week to discuss her book “From Camera Lens to Conspiracies: What Zapruder Saw Then to What the World Sees Now.”

While the “Zapruder Film” has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam, reading about the book’s premise reminded me how much the world has changed in regards to how news is covered. Just imagine for a moment if the JFK assassination occurred today. There would hundreds of spectators with smart phones taking photos, shooting videos, steaming live to Facebook, all to be posted on social media.

Back in 1963, Zapruder protected his film by entrusting it to the U.S. Secret Service. He later sold the rights to Life magazine whose editors carefully protected their investment. Eventually, the images were stolen and used by several famous and not so famous media outlets.

Today, television stations routinely encourage viewers to record breaking news when they see it (one station even reminds viewers to turn the phone sideways before you start recording). Now we get to enjoy watching passengers being dragged down the aisle of a United Airline jet to “voluntarily” give up their seat, or road rage fights.

It appears from the excerpts of the book, Zapruder was very calculating when it came to what should be done with his infamous 26 second film. The frames are horrific and capture a dark day in our nation’s past. One can see this was not an easy decision for him to make.

Does the public have the right to see it? Is forcing the Kennedy family live with those images forever fair to them? Did we learn anything more about the assassination by seeing the film then before?

Much has indeed changed in the last 54 years.

There has been a lot of buzz lately about “fake” news sites and how they may have impacted the recent presidential election.

Multiple stories have been written on how to spot a fake news story and even President Obama has weighed in calling it a threat to democracy.

There’s only one little problem, fake news has been around since the birth of our nation.

Back in 1782, Benjamin Franklin, who was in France as American ambassador, put together an entirely fake issue of a real Boston newspaper, the Independent Chronicle. In it, Franklin made up a story allegedly from the New York frontier and concerned wartime atrocities by Indians at the behest of the British.

The fake story was sent to his friends and was picked up by real newspapers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island.

Columnist Leonard Pitts (who appears in the Houston Chronicle) wrote a piece on how fake news is “eating like terminates through the foundations of democracy”. He even goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson who said “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free; it expects what never was and never will be.”

It’s a great quote, but it’s hard to swallow when you learn Jefferson secretly gave money to newspaper editors to spread personal rumors about his enemies which may or may not have been true while the country was struggling to form a new government. Oh well, it still makes for a great quote.

Now in today’s inter-connected world wide web, it’s easy to see how a fake news story can take off like a wild fire. Websites like Facebook are trying to figure out how they weed these stories out (although some reports claim Facebook generates half its ad revenue from fake news sites), so I guess it will be up to us to decide what is true and what is not.

Democracy survived Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson’s transgressions, I suspect it will continue to do so after this election as well.

Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.