Comprehension - what was the author trying to convey here?

Question

Given this passage:> 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 Benard 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 anthors 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'.Question: which of the following would Shaw and Newman most probably agree on? 1. It's a writer's duty to fulfill journalistic goals 1. Writers are likely to be tempted into journalism 1. Not all writers are capable of journalistic writing.Note: This was a reading comprehension exercise but after I finished it I found myself didn't follow the answer, which is 3 (I choose 1, because the word "calling" in the material has the meaning of duty(I am not sure whether the word has that meaning)) I need some help and thanks for donating your time to read the material.

Answer 1

Simply stated, the author is criticizing contemporary journalists as being less competent than those of the past.

In other words, he believes that basic skills of journalism (although this includes being a critic, as well) are substandard or lacking altogether.

It's true that the notion of journalistic "calling" was mentioned in the article but that's not what the article is about. I'd also point out that 'calling' does not mean 'duty.' Duty is a legal and certainly a moral obligation, not a calling. Keep in mind that of course one has duties both legal and moral within one's calling. In other words,

if one is called to be a surgeon, for instance, a surgeon has the legal and moral duties to uphold laws governing the practice of medicine and moral obligations to provide the best service to her patients.