Judge dismisses charges against Channel 3 reporter

I'm Mike Mather with Your NewsChannel 3. I respect all these opinions, but you must know I wasn't trying to get into the building. As a father, I would never foolishly risk my life. I was trying to travel down a sidewalk open to the public, next to a street open to cars, to get to where media had been directed. It was an area deemed safe by the Norfolk Fire Department. It was where the FD had set up a command post, and it was where the public was allowed to gather as well. If a gathering spot is open to the public, it is open to reporters. That's the only place I was trying to go. The case was dismissed because the officer charged me with not stopping my car when, in fact, I wasn't in a car. I was on foot. The officer had the chance to research the charge and amend it at any time, but did not. Anyone who has followed my career knows how much coverage I've devoted to law enforcement. I am a police-academy and SWAT academy graduate who maintains enormous respect for police.

Mather went into this business, knowing that he may be sacrificing things (perhaps his life) to cover stories that he want to cover. We have many journalists in Iraq, which is far more dangerous than a potential bomb in MacArthur Center. Perhaps if more people watched Channel 3 (instead of just complaining about their journalism techniques even though they don't watch it), then they could afford a Helicopter to fly over the scene. Give them a chance!

waste of time and tax payers money. Channel 3 get a nice helicopter like 10 and you can just fly over the mall and fast rope in like Andy Fox does when he sees a golf course.

The truth is that WTKR did not air anything on this matter on the news. No coverage of this incident at all.

Both were right in what they did, however, it was a breakdown in communications. Mr Mather was doing what he was told to do, and was doing what everyone else was doing ("Other people are walking that way")

Likewise, the officer was right in doing what he believed was protecting the lives of innocents. He gave an order, he had to stand by what he said.

Both did right; but there needed to be better communication between the media and the department.

As someone who worked in the broadcast media for 4 years, and has worked in law enforcement for 13 years, there's two sides and you have to see both before deciding what went wrong, or right.

Rest assured, there will be more meetings about what took place and how to prevent future problems.

I am very disappointed in the judge that found this reporter not guilty of "disregarding the orders of a uniformed police officer". The precedence set in this case just makes every police officer's job that much harder. Reporters often slant a "story" for the media sensational or career building aspect of it, and not necessarily present it as truth. Reporters should not be given "special consideration". When an officer is on the perimiter of a crime scene or potentially dangerous scene and given orders not to let anyone through, that means everyone! It is not the officer's discretion not to follow orders because some "reporter" says he/she needs to get the "story".

You can't lump Mr. Mather in as a self serving "I'm going to get the story no matter what" reporter who is out to stick it to the local lawmen. Keep in mind he did an award winning article for the Va Pilot regarding the va beach police academy, completing their training course in the process. He has also covered crime and law enforcement stories over the years from the Pilot to his current position at WTKR. He had a directive and a point of contact to get the information he needed for his story. Did he handle the situation with Officer Giligan correctly? No. Did officer Gilligan conduct himself correctly? No. There is enough fault to go around on both sides.

Sounds like Channel 3 played this to the hilt for ratings...but then I guess they need them. Getting beat at 5 by the judge shows can't be good for business.

It's one of two things, A. The reporter would do anything or risk his life to get the big story.

B. The reporter felt as if he didn't have to obey the officer because he's special.

Which is it ?

The judge could have amend the code section to the proper criminal code.

A meeting ? What do you tell someone at the meeting, other than when an officer told you not to do something, you don't do it. I guess he had his hair greased a little too much.

One day, everyone will eventually be on the "receiving end" of a "breaking story." Then see how you feel about the "rights to break a story."

Seems many have no thoughts about those who the story may be about and their privacy rights. I would not want to learn a loved one of mine was killed in a bomb, car crash, etc only because a reporter happened to report it first before I was notified.

There is a time to report the news and time to let others learn via the pre-established official routes FIRST that a loved one has come to harm.

As far as this young pup trying to get into a place, where an officer was telling him not to? Seems to me that if I am being followed by a police car with lights and sirens going that means "stop." It is the law to obey. It is also a law to obey the orders of officers in the performance of their duties. That is what should be, regardless of who/what they see in an area.

If not, why have the officers there?

Does this mean that whoever has a press pass should be allowed to enter a crime scene. What has happened to not only common sense in reporting but also appling the law. This liberal judge has opened the flood gates. The press should have no more right to be involved in an ongoing investigation as private citizens but always invoke their rights of freedom of the press. I say wake the heck up and think about the safety of others first and foremost get the facts and stay the heck out of the way.

The police officer was right in this situation God forbid there was a bomb and the Mather family would be wondering why the police officer didn't hold him back. This is another example where the police officer is trying to do his job to protect and serve and this person believes since he holds a microphone he should be able to do what he wants. What a brilliant notion to teach children, just buck authority all in the name of a job.

Let's say that our friendly reporter trying to do his job finally makes his way past the Police Officer despite the Officers objections, threats, advice, etc. Had there been an explosive device, and had it gone off, who do you think the reporter would have turned to for help? We don't listen to our Police Force when they give us advice or direction, but we surely want them in harms way when we stupidly disregard that advice and end up in trouble or hurt. The Reporter was wrong, and could have been "Dead Wrong".

I agree with susan that if other people were being allowed in a certain area, the reports should be too. It's all or nothing. My boyfriend every now and again will work for the media (mostly national) and catches **** for being in places he has every right to be. If it was truly unsafe, why would other people be allowed to go through?

The Police Officer is keeping people back from a possible bad sitsuation. MMMM Is this reporter going to maybe sniff out the bomb ? Is this reporter going to disarm the bomb ? My guess is no on both counts. Why do the others that commented feel the Police Officer is wrong? He is there to protect life, not infringe upon the right of the reporter to cover a story. What would make a better story? Reporter dies in Bomb Blast ? Or Possible Bomb in Shopping Mall. I respect Mr Mather for the job he does, he does a good job. But look at the whole incident not just the face value of the headlines.

Just because the case was dismissed due to the reporter being charged under the wrong code section does NOT mean the reporter wasn't guilty. Too often the press abuse their powers to try and get the breaking story without thought or regard to others' safety or feelings. How many times are we bombarded with the crying, sobbing replies from someone that just lost a loved one while a reporter and his/her cameraman have their equipment shoved into those faces, and asking stupid questions like, "How does it feel to have lost ?

The lawyer is right when he says police and reporters need to have meetings. They should be regularly scheduled.
As a former TV reporter, nothing was more annoying than watching "joe Blow" walk whereever he wanted, but the crew with the camera, told to stop and "you can't go there." I always had to remind the officer, that if that gentleman or lady can be where they are, we can too. It made for some tense situations, but police must keep everyone out or no one out. But don't single out the media just because...
As Mr. Mather said, other people were in the same area.

Had the reporter walked into a dangerous area, and been injured or killed, there would have been another outcry over why the police did not keep "citizens" away from danger. The only thing the officer did wrong was cite the wrong code. The reporter, with the same rights as I have, should have obeyed the officer, and gone the other route.

The reporters are making the news instead of just reporting on it. Too many use the "freedom of the press" as a scapegoat. What ever happened to the golden rule to report the 'who, what, when where and why' of a story? It seems that it is now just the where. No wonder that news 'reporters" are getting the same reputation as used car salesman.

The officer was correct in my opinion, the judge just opened the door for more abuse.

It is good news the charge was dismissed. It is not in the public's interest to keep the media away from breaking news, it is only in the interest of those wishing to hide news or those consumed by self importance.

I am glad that the judge dropped the charge. Maybe in this particular instance, Mr. Mather might have sought an alternate route to the story, but police preventing reporters from covering news would be a dangerous precedent to set. Without media to act as a watchdog over governments and agencies, both local and national, our country is no better than a communist country in which information is disseminated by and what can be reported is controlled by state-run media. People need to remember that this is America for a reason and freedom of the press is a vital part of that.

This dismissal of charges is only going to reinforce the attitude of some in the media that they above the law, and in fact, think they determine the law. The judge should have made an example of him.

I think the officer acted correctly. It has gotten to a point where a lot of reporters feel they can do what they want, when they want. They're not allowed to "blow off" a police officer just to get the story. If you are told to stop or to go around, that's what you do. Mr. Mather should have been charged.