That is the goal of continuous news. But one can easily sidestep that with a newspaper or weekly news magazine.
Which is more than sufficiently often. With extremely rare exceptions you never need more current news than that.
There are still plenty of ways to go wrong with that. But there is no value in getting news 24/7, and you can assume that such news is there to entertain rather than inform.
I tried this and spent $300 on an annual subscription to a daily paper newsletter. It didn't work – the news cycle still happens and biases still exist, which both lead to the kind of cycle the GP is talking about.
I think you do need a media organization to have less of a viewpoint (aka, bias) and more long-term predictions on the future. Unfortunately the closest approximation to this seems to be random Substackers, as even prestige entities like The Economist or The Financial Times are largely bias/worldview-driven.
Getting out of the need for continuous news is a necessary but not sufficient step. As is putting up barriers to keep out the news drone just from what you overhear.
After that you at least have sufficient breathing room to at least attempt to make your own predictions.
Which is more than sufficiently often. With extremely rare exceptions you never need more current news than that.
There are still plenty of ways to go wrong with that. But there is no value in getting news 24/7, and you can assume that such news is there to entertain rather than inform.