The female lecturer showed a clear opposite position against the reading passage

about a professor being on television. She emphasized that it is not positive that
that type of instructor be on that means of communication for the reason that she
does not see any benefit for that type of activity.First of all, the lecturer
disagrees with the idea that the passage presented about television increasing the
reputation of universities and their authorities. According to the reading passage,
when a professor is presented on television, this would provoke a rise in
reputation due to the fact that a great number of people would watch him and could
learn from an expert. Nonetheless, the lecture stated that this can show that that
professor is not focused on academic activities but instead on entertainment. She
added that it is preferable that that professor be doing research or have presence
in congresses. Apart from reputation, the passage implied that the publicity
generated from the presentations on television of professors can bring more
donations to their universities; however, the lecturer said that a professor being
on TV has some detriments like losing time. For example, the professor will require
time to travel, to prepare, and so on. Rather, that professor could use this time
to do research, in her view.The passage stated that a talk by a professor has
considerable repercution; nevertheless, the lecturer mentioned that typical people
are not really interested in the details of what a professor has to say about his
research; instead, they only want to know general things, according to the female.
She affirmed that a single TV reporter can read a general title with a general
report, making the presence of that expert not useful.