a negative influence on society, not only because he believes it, but also because there is evidence to prove it.In response to Hollywood's first defense, in which it claims there is no proof, he points out that Hollywood must believe in the media's ability to influence an audience or else there would be no purpose for advertising. The goal of television commercials or product appearances in films is to influence the public to buy the product. Corporations wouldn't spend millions of dollars on advertising if it didn't prove effective. If commercials are able to send messages that promote purchasing goods, then violent television programs are also capable of sending messages that promote violent behaviors.A second line of defense by Medved is that Hollywood does not hold up to their claim of accurately reflecting reality. He compares this relationship to that of ones reflection in a fun-house mirror. There are similarities between what is real and what is being reflected, but the reflection is distorted. A twenty-year study conducted on violence on television concluded that, on average, "there are between six and eight acts of violence an hour with two entertaining murders a night." "This means that violent acts occurred on television fifty-five times more frequently than they did in the real world."Third, the proof that people do take what they see in the media seriously lies in the younger population. Out of all the age groups teenagers spend the most hours consuming popular culture, they are also the group that demonstrates the most destructive behavior. Children don't have the capacity to understand that fictional characters and television are not real. At a young age anyone can be easily influenced. Children have limited sources to compare the behaviors they see in the media to because they have not been exposed too much. It wouldn't be unlikely for them to imitate what they see their favorite super hero or robot doing on televisio...
