Nhờ sửa bài giúp

These two passages discuss the consequences for a professor to appear on television programmes.

While the writer states this gives many benefits to the professor as well as to universities and to the public, the lecturer thinks otherwise.

First of all, the speaker explains that a TV appearance is not good for a professor's reputation on a professional standpoint: his peers would see him as an entertainer rather than a serious scholar.

Some professors who appear on TV are not even invited to important conferences, and are not granted money for their research.

Thus, the lecturer clearly shows that a "professors' importance as scholars is" not "enhanced" at all.

Moreover, the teacher pinpoints that appearing on TV takes a lot of time: professors will have to prepare their material, to rehearse, to travel...

Leaving them less time for their research, to teach their students, or to attend university business.

Lastly, contrary to what the text states, a professor's TV appearance does not benefit the public either: most TV programmes just want the academic title, and not actual in-depth knowledge.

So there is no "real expertise and insight", as a TV reporter who would have done some research on a subject could tell the same things to the public, according to the lecturer.