Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.

    It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.

    We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define ‘journalism’ as ‘a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’.”

    Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.

    Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.

答案精析：根据题干中的Shaw and Newman可定位至文章第三段第三至五句。根据第三段最后一句中So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism可知，很少有作家拥有足够的头脑或文学天赋保证他们在新闻业坚持下去。由此可以看出，并非所有的作家都有能力进行新闻写作，因此选择D项。

错项排除：A项在文章中未提及，故排除。文章提出作家把新闻工作当成一种使命，并为自己的文章能刊登而感到自豪，由此可知，两人并不认为新闻工作是可鄙的。原文提及I am tempted to define ‘journalism’ as…（不禁想把‘新闻业’定义为……），并未说明作家可能被吸引到新闻工作之中，因此排除C项。

长难句分析：We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared.

本句的主干为We are even farther removed…，from the unfocused newspaper reviews为状语，published in…World War II为过去分词短语作后置定语，逗号之后为状语，when引导定语从句，修饰a time，in which引导定语从句，修饰the publications。

句意为：从20世纪初到二战前夕，在英国发表的那些报纸评论话题广泛，这与现在就更不相同了。当时，新闻用纸非常便宜，辞藻华丽的文艺评论被认为是对刊登这种内容出版物的装饰。