Recently PBS aired a documentary on how the news media -- print and TV -- covered the Kennedy visit to Dallas, the subsequent assasinations, and follow up.
They showed reporters broadcasting considerable utterly wrong information because they were in such a hurry to put anything out over the air. They interviewed upset bystanders who gave notoriously inaccurate accounts.
That remains one of the big problems of "instant" TV journalism, such as the cable news channels. They're in such a hurry to get something out over the air they fail to check the story and get the TOTAL picture. Partial pictures are very misleadings. Don't report an "explosion" until you know exactly what exploded and the severity.
I remember all local stations in my city suspended normal broadcasts (at a juicy time) to show a gas main break. The first few seconds were interesting as the flames were shooting high into the air. But after that it was meaningless. As it turned out, there were no injuries to anyone and very little properly damage (the fire was in the middle of an intersection). Certainly a news story, but not worth pre-empting other shows for. Obviously the news directors jumped on the pictorial aspect, rather than the _journalistic_ aspect. That's what scary about TV news -- it focuses on the PICTURE, not the STORY. In the 1960s, street protesters learned to create good TV pictures that made them appear to be far more influential than they really were. Great propaganda.
As to all the theories about the killings, one of my co-workers insists I (as a child) was clearly visible standing in the background in Dallas and obviously had some part. That makes about as much sense as any other theory.
A few years ago Newsweek did a feature story on this. While the official version doesn't have the elements of conspiracy and intrigue that the theories have, Newsweek demonstrated that the official story was very thoroughly substantiated by the evidence.
I do feel, however, that had Kennedy lived, his legacy would be far different than the beloved place he occupies in our history. He was gone and Johnson was the one to escalate in Vietnam, push through civil rights legislation and massive social spending. It was Kennedy's "best and brightest" who stayed on under Johnson, and I think Kennedy would've pushed as hard in Vietnam as Johnson did, with the same domestic turmoil.