Reading news, dealing with anxieties
I see the content I consume as seeds that I plant in my brain, and also the fertilizer. Therefore, the information that passes through my filter will define what grows out of it: knowledge, ideas, happiness, or anxiety and stress?
News generates so much stress, often unnecessarily. One can probably recall some headlines from January–February last year, the anxiety they created, only to be irrelevant by the end of 2025. Other news did indeed prove to be correct and significant, and we felt it or experienced it. Was it worth agonizing over a news story and 20 different coverages and takes of it?
Everything is not black and white, of course. But with this much information reaching us from all over the world, I believe everyone needs a strategy for how to stay sane. Here is mine.
Frequency
Social media apps are deleted from my phone. For news, I check it once or twice a day (like it used to be: a newspaper in the morning and a news programme in the evening). I do plan to move to a weekly schedule. I’m just trying to figure out how not to turn a week’s worth of reading into one day, but instead have selected highlights only.
Quality control
Short checklist:
Scan headlines in general; apply diligence to news that matters to me or that triggers an emotional response.
Facts first, opinions maybe.
No quotes out of context – always check the source.
If the news is very important to me, deliberately search for coverage from multiple papers.
If research is mentioned, go straight to the source: what’s the methodology, and in many cases, what’s the sample size?
If it’s analysis about a subject that matters to me, who is writing it? What are their credentials? Do they have practical experience? This is particularly important when reading financial or economic analysis. I.e., I’ll take Nassim Taleb’s or Zoltan Pozsar’s take over writers who have only written about the economy and financial markets (though there is still at least one journalist whose work I read because of his time-tested reporting from the early 2000s).
No analysis claiming to know what someone “felt” or “thought” – I have no patience for mind reading. I want analysis based on actions or spoken words, not perceived feelings.
Sensationalist headlines are a no (AI will end the world, xxx policy will kill xxx country). I understand that news organizations and journalists have to survive, but doing so by buying into clickbait-type writing is a low bar, and I love my brain too much to feed it this.
When I’m reading news, I look for agencies that state simple facts. If a piece includes quotes or claims that someone said something – and the topic is important to me – I look for the original source. Too often, in my view, words are misinterpreted. The number of times I’ve read a full statement and formed a different opinion compared to one isolated quote is countless.
(P.S.: That doesn’t mean my analysis is always right, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I trust how I read and analyse information myself, and I prefer news agencies not to interpret someone’s words for me.)
If a company’s statement is cited, I read the original too.
If papers or studies are mentioned, I’ll at least read the abstract, do a quick scan of the research methods, and look at the conclusions. If the issue is very important, I search for other papers that cover the same topic. Are they peer-reviewed? What’s the sample size? How recent are they?
In brief: when it comes to news, I look for facts, not allegations, and I always go back to the source on topics that matter to me, where I want to form a more informed opinion.
For highly sensitive or controversial subjects, I also check a variety of headlines and deliberately read those that contradict my own thinking, just to see if I might be missing an important point.
When I’m reading commentary or analysis
Who is writing it, and what are their credentials? In fields where real practice demonstrates competence, such as finance and economics, I look for a practicing expert who has proven they understand how things work in real life, not just on paper. Otherwise, I’ll likely skip a theoretical commentator in favour of someone who has actually made money in the markets and understands, for example, shadow financing.
That doesn’t mean the theoretical commentator is always wrong or the practitioner is always right. But given my limited time, I choose to listen more to people who have consistently shown real-world success rather than those who only observe.
If a piece claims to know what someone is thinking, it loses credibility in my eyes. For example: “X did it because he thinks…” vs. “X did this, likely thinking that…” Language matters. When I see confidence in “mind reading” and assumptions about motivations instead of at least acknowledging possibilities, I lose interest in that commentary.
If there is a new source I’m considering reading, I go back to their writing from around 2020 onward to review their positions on key issues. Since 2020, we’ve had plenty of major topics with dominant narratives that later shifted as new information emerged. I don’t expect anyone to be right all the time, but if a writer has been consistently wrong on all the key issues I care about, I don’t waste time on their current takes. Not because they can’t be right, but because the likelihood is lower, and I simply don’t have time to read everyone’s opinions, even if they’re published by big papers.
If they have been wrong, have they acknowledged it? No one is right all the time, but it matters to me that someone recognizes past mistakes or flawed analyses instead of carrying on as if nothing happened.
By now, I have a list of people I read on various subjects, with a few new voices here and there that I find interesting. My husband recently gave me a few people to follow whose opinions are almost the opposite of mine on nearly every subject. It’s valuable, but I wouldn’t overdo it.
Ultimately, when I get worked up about something, I ask myself two questions:
Does this affect my life right now?
Can I do anything about it right now?
If the answer is no (which it usually is, about 95% of the time), I remind myself that stress only hurts the life right in front of me: how I show up with my family, whether I’m happy or tense, present or distracted (even if I’m physically there).
Sometimes I look back at headlines from 10–20 years ago and their bold predictions about the future. Most of them turned out to be wrong, which reminds me that today’s probably are too.
I don’t see this as ignorance. I see it as being intentional with getting the most out of my brain. Managing news consumption, for me, isn’t about knowing less. It’s about knowing enough, without letting it take more than it gives. To do my best work, I need to be calm and composed, able to generate new ideas and think clearly. And to be a good human being to the people around me, I need to stay grounded and energized.
As a bonus, by not letting news drain my energy, I actually read more and find myself generating more ideas.