I don't think "sounds more/less professional" is really a relevant factor here.
There are contexts where we always use derivatives of manufacture rather than make (for example, companies may have their manufacturing plants, but never their making plants).
But when it comes to describing companies that produce X's, the main thing that affects whether we call them X makers or X manufacturers is the complexity/scale of the production process.
Have a look at these charts for furniture, car, television, and aircraft. In that sequence, they show an increasing preference for manufacturer, which I think reflects our perception of complexity.
As implied by @rsegal's comment, maker (as a much older word) has stronger associations with "pre-industrialised" production (on a smaller scale, more "custom-built" products, etc.).
But these are just usage tendencies - there's no definitive rule in play. FWIW, there are 2-3 times as many piston manufacturers as there are piston makers, but I very much doubt there would be any tendency at all for the latter to be either smaller, or "less professional" companies.
To the extent that we might choose one word over another, our choice is governed by the product and/or the processes involved, not by attributes of the company that produces them.
Let us consider the example of "no less than the country's president attended".
In many countries with the title president, they are of considerable political power. In most of the rest, it is still a position of considerable esteem. As such, there would be few, or no, potential attendees of greater rank.
So, the set of people who are "not less" than the president will be very small; either just the president or else the president and a handful of other people.
To have someone from that small set attend is therefore remarkable.
So, it literally means "someone who ranks as least as highly as the president attended", and the person referred to in this roundabout fashion is indeed the president. You would not expect someone to say "No less than the president attended. It was the Taoiseach who has more real power".
This is a from of litotes where we use an understatement to produce emphasis, often a double-negative or negating a comparison to produce the opposite comparison as in this case ("no less than" meaning "at least as great as").
Litotes is found in many languages, and very common in English. We have "not bad" for "good", "not bad looking" for "attractive", "no spring chicken" for "old", and so on. English has quite the history with it, as Old English poetry used it a lot.
It can perhaps be best read as "Wow, the president attended, can you imagine, the president. That's the most impressive person there could possibly be attending!", but from a more reserved speaker.
Best Answer
Definition 2 is correct. When you or someone else emphasises your looks and physical attractiveness over your character and skills, you are turned to some degree in a mere object of people's physical attraction and desire, instead of being an agent, a subject yourself—or so says the newswoman.
Your paraphrase is not correct: you left out than. To edit your paraphrase:
The difference is that what you said means the opposite of the original.
As you see, situations A (using an umbrella) and B (holding a newspaper over your head) are opposites. The two opposites in the quotation are:
The question she asks is, "is situation A less objectifying than B?". So are you turned into a mere object of sexual attraction (as opposed to your mind and skills) less if you do it yourself than if someone else does it?