Broadcasting and publishing are very different. Broadcasting involves beaming electromagnetic signals from a transmitter, and anyone who has a receiver will get the signal. It comes into your home whether you want it to or not. Hence all the strict government regulations about bad words, nudity, and other objectionable content being broadcast on TV or radio - because the content is being pushed out to the world, you don’t have any choice about what is being aired, all you can do is change the channel or turn off the receiver after hearing something you dislike. If something objectionable is aired, any child with a receiver might hear the objectionable thing.
Whereas publishing involves putting out a thing that people have to take action to obtain. In the olden days, by going to a news stand. Nowadays, the going out is virtual, but the essence remains the same - you want the thing, you search for it, find it, and then you read/view/hear it. You are in control of what content you encounter. If you come across something objectionable, well, you were the one who typed in the search term/bought the magazine with the lurid cover/whatever. Parents can control what their kids see by limiting access to the internet. Hence, the government doesn’t regulate the content of publications beyond a very limited set of banned topics (kiddie porn, for example). Not for lack of trying by various blue nosed groups who want the entire internet to be just as sterile and boring as broadcast media.
Getting back on topic, publications and broadcasters use very different royalty schemes for reimbursing creators. The royalty system for publications grew organically over centuries of writers and publishers figuring out what system they could both live with, whereas the broadcast royalty system was invented over just a couple years in the early 20th century and imposed upon broadcasters by music publishers.
