They're not constrasting paid journalists with unpaid journalists, they're pointing out that NYT's journalists being paid doesn't necessarily make them "real".

Real vs. fake? Paid vs. unpaid? NYT vs. ??? I feel like I need a semiotics text to figure out what's actually being implied here.

It doesn't seem that complicated to me... Someone described the NYT's journalists as "real" journalists and return0 took issue with that, saying that they're (just) "paid" journalists. The suggestion is that whether what they do is "real journalism" or not (and whether, in return0's words, they should be considered "arbiters of truth") is determined by factors beyond simply having a budget.[1]

Ie. Being paid for it is an insufficient condition for "real journalism", though it may or may not be a necessary one.

[1]. And I suppose it is implied that the NYT doesn't (always?) meet those factors.

This reads like an explanation to a sample question on a standardized test. This isn't a formal debate and no one gets points for logically correct but empty observations.

I still don't know what the specific alternative to "paid journalists" is. I don't need a random HN commenter to tell me that there are humans in newsrooms and sometimes they display bias, make mistakes, or even lie on purpose. But injecting comments like the original don't actually add anything to the conversation other than a generalized paranoia. If return0 has specific complaints, they should articulate them.

i don't think the opposite of 'real' is 'unpaid'

It seems like you’re the one who introduced “paid” vs “unpaid”. GP only claimed “real”; you introduced the strawman to which you now object.

i did not mention unpaid

You described them as "paid". The opposite of _that_ would be unpaid.

But the larger issue is that I don't really know what you're comparing professional journalism to. Is there actual volunteer journalism that attempts to enforce editorial standards and faces consequences when they fail?