In the lecture the woman stated that there is no real benefit to anyone when a professor appears on TV.
Firstly she told that the professor who are attending TV programs may miss important meetings or conferences. Their motivation changes from education to entertainment. For that they may face difficulty to get money for their research work. Moreover appearing on TV wastes a major amount of time of the professor which he could utilize in university research. So, neither the professor nor the university is getting benefit from this phenomenon. And by making this point clear, the woman also opposes the points made in the passage as it has been stated in the passage that both university and professor becomes beneficial by getting in touch with public when some professor appears on TV.
Secondly, in the lecture the woman also refused to agree with the argument made in the passage that people watching the interview of the professor get a deeper knowledge in a specific subject area. The woman told that actually the TV channel company does not want to telecast a serious conversation on TV. So, what they telecast is a mild, narrow discussion with the professor about an academic title or a brief incident. This can also be accomplished by a mere reporter with some background work.
So, finally, the woman in her lecture cogently repudiated the fact that there is a huge benefit to university, professor and public on attending a professor in a television conversation.