Introduction to Mass Communications

Mass Communication relies on considerate and fair legislative frameworks to protect
various stakeholders. Such initiatives are evidenced by definitions and differentiations of
obscene, profane, and even indecent material to ensure ethical operations at all times. Legislative
policies such as the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Opportunities Rule sought to ensure both users
of mass communication resources and their audiences remain protected from abuse and
manipulation. Therefore, industry definitions and legal policies continue to ensure the full
stakeholder profile in mass communications remains defined and protected based on careful
partnerships and an ethical foundation.

Question One

The difference between obscene and indecent materials in the Mass Communications
ecosystem is defined in part by industrial ethics and partly by statutory and legal guidelines.
Before delving into the difference, one must remember that the American society has slightly
different definitions based on their Constitution having the First Amendment (Levesque, 2018).
Consequently, obscene material is content that mass communication stakeholders may create,
share, or disseminate that is deemed disgusting and repulsive to an the extent that it fails to serve
any mass communication objective while also contravening ethical and legal guidelines. Such
material is not protected by the First Amendment provision in the United States Constitution, and
cannot be allowed in the public domain for any reason. Such material includes sexual images and
videos of a pornographic nature, animals or human beings engaged in sexual acts, or nude
images depicting reproductive organs.
Conversely, indecent materials in the same mass communication environment refers to
the nature of content that is somewhat similar to obscene material, but benefiting benefits from

COM-121 3
First Amendment provisions. Such materials might include images of undergarments, naked
images, and videos of humans without depictions of sex or their reproductive organs. Therefore,
indecent material is also disgusting, but not repulsive to an the extent of complete dismissal from
mass communication creation and dissemination. One of the criteria for distinguishing between
obscene and indecent material in a mass communication setting is that the latter is allowed in the
public domain with clauses and provisions to protect children and other vulnerable consumers in
the audience (Dominick, 2013). However, obscene materials are dismissed without any
categorical considerations. While indecent material may not always be of a sexual nature, the
main objective s of indecent material is usually within the entertainment and education domains.
However, the state and Federal policy frameworks liaise with Federal law to ensure that
entertainment using indecent content does not culminate in the use of obscene material.

Question Two

The Fairness Doctrine is a policy that the United States Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) created in 1949 (Zelizer, 2017). As a doctrine, the policy was meant to
control the competitiveness and ethical operations of broadcast licensees. The policy required
that holders of such licenses to present issues of a controversial nature and public importance to
the public in a timely and comprehensive manner. Therefore, broadcasters were required to
identify and authenticate any matter that was controversial and had social importance before
reporting it to the audiences comprehensively. Secondly, the Fairness Doctrine also required the
holders of such licenses to broadcast such controversial issues of public importance in a way that
was unbiased and fair for all stakeholders involved. Essentially, the doctrine provided a policy
framework for broadcasters in the United States to apply when disseminating controversial issues
of public nature and importance.

COM-121 4
Conversely, the Equal Opportunities Rule was created in 1933 when the Federal Radio
Commission (FRC) became the FCC leading to the prior Radio Act of 1927 getting surpassed by
the Communications Act of 1934 (Hobbs, 2018). Herein, the Rule sought to create equal
treatment and opportunity for politicians in the radio and broadcast industry by specifying that
license holders provide equal and fair broadcasting opportunities and time slots for opposing
political rivals when and if requested. Unlike the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to protect the
audience by ensuring license holders broadcasted important issues, the Rule was more inclined to
covering the interests of politicians (Dominick, 2013). The Equal Opportunities Rule went as far
as stipulating the prices for all competing politicians be fair and equal to ensure all candidates
got fair and equal opportunities in the growing and diversifying American mass communication
industry.

Conclusion

The mass communications practice and industry rely on various legislative and industry
policies to protect its full range of stakeholders. Audiences are protected by various industry
ethics that define acceptable and unacceptable content. Consequently, obscene and indecent
materials are both carefully defined and even covered by the industry policy frameworks in
addition to the US Constitutional provisions, such as the First Amendment. Furthermore, certain
policies such as the as the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Opportunities Rule continue to ensure
both users of mass communication resources and their audiences remain protected from abuse
and manipulation. Due to the dynamic nature of mass communication caused in part by changing
cultural and customer habits, and the rapid innovations, digital technologies has have caused, the
policy and ethical guidelines in mass communications shift constantly.

COM-121 5

References

Dominick, J. R. (2013). Dynamics of mass communication: Media in transition (12th ed.).
McGraw-Hill Education.
Hobbs, R. (2018). Media education, copyright, and fair use. The Routledge Companion to Media
Education, Copyright, and Fair Use, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315637549-1
Levesque, R. J. (2018). Obscene and indecent expressions. Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 2567-
2569. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33228-4_772
Zelizer, J. E. (2017). How Washington helped create the con temporary media: Ending the
fairness doctrine in 1987. Media Nation, 176-
189. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812293746-012