The lecturer contends that professors who are appearing appear on television do not benefit anyone among professors themselves, the universities and the public. (무슨의미인지 잘 모르겠어요) This directly contradicts the reading passage's assertion that professors giving their views or opinions on television benefit all of them mentioned above.
First of all, the lecturer insists that the professors who publish views on TV tend not to be not considered as serious scholars by other professors. This is because other professors might think that the professors appearing on TV may miss an important conference because of being to be on TV, and they think the program that the professors appear is made for the purpose of entertainment, not education. This is in direct contrast to the passage's claim that the professors appearing on TV benefit themselves by increasing their reputation.
In addition, the lecturer argues that professors appearing on TV do not benefit the universities, because it makes the professors to waste their time. To be specific, the professors need to prepare what to present on TV. However, it would be better for the universities that if the professors spend their time on university business such as doing research and meeting with students. This is also contradictory to the reading passage's insist that professors appearing on TV is good for the universities.
reading에서 tv에 나오는 professor 들이 왜 학교에 좋은지도 써 주시면 좋을 것 같아요.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that the public cannot benefit from the professors appearing on TV. This is because TV network (media 라고 쓰는게 좋을 것 같아요) does not want a serious academic lectures, so it does not allow the professors to give high quality expertise to the public. The public can only gain a brief background of a topic from the professors on TV. This rebuts the reading passage's claim that the professors on TV benefit the public.
전반적으로 리딩에 대한 내용이 조금은 부족한 것 같아요. 그냥 lecturer이 리딩의 의견을 반대했다고 쓰는 것 보다 리딩의 어떠한 의견을 (디테일하게) 반대한지 쓰는 게 좋을 것 같아요.