While watching the Senate hearing on the future of journalism, it was mentioned that the declining number of investigative reporters is a very, very bad trend. One of the (oft-forgotten) roles of the media, at its best, is to watch the watchmen, to be the eye -- and sometimes scourge -- of the powerful.
But investigative reporting is exhausting and expensive for traditional news outlets already stretched thin. This led me to a possible answer, a tool that could be used not just for keeping good journalism alive, but also for such difficult tasks as tracking down and punishing war criminals.
Bounties.
Yes, I'm serious. So far in today's world, bounties (or prizes) have often been used to promote technological and scientific achievement. The X Prizes are a good example. However, while a worthy endeavor, the sort of grand accomplishments they focus on usually require enough resources that winning is just a happy bonus, not a true driving incentive.
But bounties could be used, effectively, to encourage investigative journalism, among other worthy goals.
Imagine this: an independent foundation offers a considerable sum (say $5,000 to 50,000) for solid investigative reporting that uncovers corruption. They have a deal with news services, always looking for a cheaper way to get juicy content. The small administrative costs of maintaining such a fund would be considerably less than running your own traditional media outlet, and a tidy profit could thus be made from selling the stories.
Furthermore, the bounty per story (added in with a portion of royalties) would be substantial enough that writers could make a respectable amount of money with a few brilliant investigative pieces a year, taking the investigative journalist out of the endangered species category.
The same principle strikes me as having a lot of application in another area that's so far proved problematic: tracking down war criminals.
In this area, international organizations like the U.N. or the International Criminal Court face a big problem: they don't have armies and lack the clout to often compel nations to give up war criminals.
But imagine it works this way: instead of simply reading out charges of genocide, a UN envoy or ICC judge would begin with "the bounty has been set at $3 million for the general's capture..."
Suddenly mercenaries, cash-strapped developing world governments, individual fortune-seekers and local militia and guerilla groups would all be after said genocidaire and instead of retiring peacefully to an out of the way villa, they'd be constantly checking their backs, waiting for the bullet to come.
More investigators, less war criminals.
Sounds like a small step to a better world, doesn't it?
Comments