This article is from our community spotlight section, written by and for our journalism community.

We want to hear about your challenges, breakthroughs and experiences. Want to contribute? Get in touch and help shape the discussion around the future of journalism.

A reporter publishes the story. Then comes the rest of the job.

An email arrives from the source who wants to know why that quote made it in and the other one did not. A reader complains about bias before finishing the second paragraph. A community member who took a risk by speaking up deserves a follow-up call. A correction has to be public, clear, and unembarrassed. Somewhere in the middle of all that sits a smaller, quieter decision: answer one more hostile message, or close the laptop and protect what is left of the day.

Journalism still likes to talk about relationship building as though it were a virtue: be transparent, be responsive, show your work, and rebuild trust.

None of that is wrong. However, the problem is the framing. Language like that makes relationship work sound airy, almost moral in the abstract, when in practice it is skilled, time-consuming, and often emotionally expensive. A real form of labour gets recast as posture; then the profession acts surprised when journalists burn out under the weight of work the newsroom praises but does not fully name.

That is the part journalism still has not reckoned with. Relationship building is not just a good instinct or a future-facing value. It is labour. Much of that labour remains invisible, and the profession has a bad habit of benefiting from invisible work while pretending it costs nothing.

My recent research on relationship building as a metacognitive news literacy behavior helped sharpen that point. Journalists did not describe this work as charm, warmth, or audience management, but rather as better branding. They described judgement. They described follow-through. They described the constant process of deciding how to make reporting legible, how to protect a source, how to respond without overpromising, how to stay open without becoming endlessly accessible, how to remain fair under pressure, and how to keep credibility from collapsing in public. In their telling, relationship building was not adjacent to journalism. It was journalism.

Some parts of that labour are easy enough to see. A listening session takes time. A newsletter that sounds like a relationship rather than a content chute takes time. Answering questions in good faith takes time. Explaining a reporting decision, following up after publication, correcting clearly, and showing documentation all take time. Newsrooms can point to that work, schedule it, maybe even applaud it.

What proves harder to count is usually what takes the most out of people.