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.
No comments:
Post a Comment