Radio Policy Framework, Essay Example

Toward Regulation of Music Payola in USA

Payola has been a disturbing issue in the music market, creating various scandals, and reaching public prominence and legal gravity multiple times. This act of compensating a commercial radio station monetarily to play particular songs without the knowledge of the public became an issue of public morality under US law (Fairchild, 2012). Payola itself was not illegal, even though highly criticized and unethical for music bands. Its use was motivated by advantages such as boosts in sales due to public exposure. However, the cons outweigh its disadvantages, as some artists become underserved, some lack exposure, integrity is later lost, and the cost of music is elevated. These challenges are perceived to date; hence, the need to enforce a policy framework to solve the challenges.

Some of the policies implemented today for music regulation include The Federal Radio Act (1927), The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and The Radio Act of 1912 (Hazlett, 2019). Even so, the practicality of these radio frameworks has been questioned through increasing practices of the “pay-to-play” actions by music artists (Hazlett, 2019). Until now, exposure has been the key to making it in the music industry, and in the ideal world, Payola harms a record label that could have otherwise succeeded in the market. The need for appropriate behavior in the music industry calls for eliminating the undesirable actions from music artists by creating a favorable policy framework.

The Radio Act of 1912 can be amended to improve the consistency and efficiency of the music industry, reduce risks to organizations on the basis of engaging in criminal acts, and ensure that a roadmap is created for day-to-day operations. Music companies ought to have streamlined internal procedures and a succinct decision-making system that is in compliance with the guiding laws and regulations. Having a policy framework based on the adjustments of The Radio Act of 1912 can, therefore, enhance such advantages to broadcasters.

While Payola remains a critical challenge in the music market, broadcasters have been required to operate under federal licensing. There is a need to have them face the law when rules are broken. Clearly, paying the broadcasters for the advertisement of an artist’s label is against the criminal law recommendations (Christians et al., 2020). An effective radio policy may still be covered by speech protections in the First Amendment. However, The Radio Act of 1912 may be effective in solving Payola as soon as additional provisions guiding pay-for-play are included. It still remains that the provision only cares for the industry by prohibiting broadcasting over the main commercial wavelengths by the armature radio stations.

The new policy framework should consider the increasing commercial culture in broadcasting, as well as the broadened consumer expectations in the market. This is so because, with greater advancements, any laws guiding Payola continue to be outmoded (Brennan & Jaworski 2015). The policy may include legalities in Payola for as long as broadcasters make it public that music artists have been involved in the act. While it may ruin the music industry, it may also become impractical for artists to go public for participating in the acts. Furthermore, the fees may be increased by the public to ensure that participating in the act becomes costly.

The policy framework may also deem the actions of Payola as problematic and illegal in case nothing is communicated after the pay-to-play acts. This may cover broadcasters as they are not in any way sellers of goods. In that way, one of the criminal procedures against those practicing Payola may be the banning of their airwaves, as they are already publicly licensed. Public licensing makes radio broadcasters subject to government regulation, and as such, they are still subject to actions from the criminal justice system upon any form of violation. Payola can be considered an act of selling an artist’s label or brand, and from its prohibition, broadcasters involved in the act may be unlicensed from their airwaves.

Payola may also be perceived as a money-laundering scheme. Money laundering has become an easy process due to the capacity to only have a few corporate interests in the broadcasts. Such are considered illegal operations. Licensing from The Radio Act of 1912 does not allow or support such actions due to the call for the criminal justice system (Benjamin, 1998). The unethical and inappropriate behavior of making new artists appear suddenly on multiple formats and be aggressively promoted should be an illegal act covered under the law. In that way, a new and better policy framework may contribute to the legal ways of music promotion, and not from the dubious aspects.

With Payola becoming a corporate crime, it still promotes imbalanced content in broadcasting and demeans the image of the broadcast systems. The consequences are higher than they could be felt when it is associated with corporate crime. Besides, the economic impact of such crimes is costlier compared to the ordinary crime. Payola harms the clients due to the delivery of content they would not want to hear, endanger employees as soon as they are exposed to the unsafe working conditions in the broadcast media, and lead to increasing challenges for the community in general. The new policy framework may prevent Payola as a white-collar crime and, as such, prevent the devastation caused to victims just as violent crime.

A good policy framework founded on the licensing provisions by The Radio Act of 1912 can create sustainable broadcast media with balanced content from both new and existing artists. This is important at ensuring that proper decisions are made according to the law and that the media’s imagery is protected. Besides, the meeting of goals may be an easy task as soon as regulations from the new policy framework are adhered to. Such a healthy media balance may also promote business in the music market and broadcasting. The regulations would provide consistency in airwaves, and there would be no single airwave above the other. As such, participating in Payola would call for attention from other broadcasters.

Payola has been an increasing issue, especially with the rise in technology, creating more public attention for the call of a better policy framework. A framework founded on The Radio Act of 1912 is critical as it would entail the licensing of various broadcasters’ airwaves, which are important at exposing them to criminal law. Paying various stations to play particular music has multiple disadvantages than advantages as the music imagery is spoilt, the cost of production is increased, and the underserved musicians lack exposure to the public. Being a corporate crime today, there is a need to have payola actions subjected to the criminal justice system. Such actions would promote fairness in the media and music industries.

References

Benjamin, L. (1998). Working it out together: Radio policy from Hoover to the radio act of 1927. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159809364445

Brennan, J., & Jaworski, P. (2015). Markets without Limits. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315818085

Christians, C., Fackler, M., Richardson, K., & Kreshel, P. (2020). Media Ethics. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429282249

Fairchild, C. (2012). Alan Freed still casts a long shadow: the persistence of Payola and the ambiguous value of music. Media, Culture & Society, 34(3), 328-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711433667

Hazlett, T. (2019). The 1927 Radio Act as Pre-emption of Common Law Property Rights. Review of Industrial Organization, 56(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-019-09707-4