At the time of this writing, it is early January 2026. I had recently returned from holiday, having been away since December 16. From December 18 through early January, I did not follow the news.
In fact, I did not check the news at all during that time, and I still have not re-engaged with it. If and when I do, it will be intentionally limited to specific economic or industry information directly relevant to my work.
What emerged during this period surprised me.
I found myself questioning whether I even wanted to re-engage with the news at all.
Why I Stepped Away
Not out of protest.
Not out of avoidance.
Simply because I did.
And what became clear—only in the absence of it—was this:
I may have felt more informed than I had in a long time.
The First Thing I Noticed Wasn’t Peace
It was discomfort.
A subtle sense of being unmoored.
A quiet question lingering in the background:
Am I missing something important?
That question is revealing.
For many leaders—founders, advisors, agency owners—being “informed” has quietly become entangled with being responsible. Somewhere along the way, staying current began to feel like a moral obligation.
But once the initial discomfort passed, something else emerged.
Not ignorance.
Not apathy.
Clarity.
Why News So Often Activates Rather Than Informs
This isn’t a political observation.
It’s a structural one.
Modern news is exceptionally effective at three things:
- Triggering urgency
- Provoking moral or existential pressure
- Demanding reaction without resolution
Urgency keeps the nervous system on edge. “Breaking” banners that never turn off. Alerts designed to interrupt rather than inform. Language that implies if you’re not paying attention right now, you’re already behind.
Moral and existential pressure pulls on identity. It quietly asks: What kind of person are you if you don’t care about this? For thoughtful, values-driven leaders, that hook goes deep.
And reaction without resolution may be the most corrosive of all. Stories are introduced, escalated, and left open-ended. There is rarely closure. Rarely a place for the nervous system to rest—only the promise that we’ll continue to follow this story.
So we react.
We hold.
And we never discharge.
Multiply that by dozens of stories a week, and it’s no wonder so many leaders feel simultaneously overwhelmed and ineffective.
What Emerges When the Noise Stops
Without consciously intending it, stepping away created space for something else to surface.
Bigger questions arose.
Not What’s happening out there?
But What’s actually required of me—now?
I noticed myself weighing sufficiency over optimization.
Listening more closely to my body.
Questioning effort versus ease.
Letting long-range thinking breathe again.
Letting go of thinking.
These are not small shifts. They are the kinds of internal recalibrations that rarely occur when the external signal is loud.
Here is the paradox:
When constant stimulation is removed, the system may initially feel less certain. But given a little time, a more trustworthy signal emerges—your own.
Stepping Away Is Not the Same as Being Out of Touch
This distinction matters.
During that period away, business and life did not stop—not because I was monitoring things from afar, but because there is a capable team and well-designed systems in place to carry the work forward.
Clients continued to book appointments.
Projects moved forward.
Writing flowed.
Decisions were made.
Not through urgency or micromanagement, but through trust, clarity, and shared ownership.
Reality did not disappear because headlines were not being consumed.
And the business did not stall because its leader was not reacting in real time.
What disappeared was ambient urgency—that low-grade pressure to respond to things you have no jurisdiction over and no meaningful way to influence.
For leaders, this is not a luxury insight. It’s a practical one.
Your work requires discernment, sequencing, and calm authority. Those capacities do not thrive in an environment of constant, unresolved urgency.
The Quiet Training We Rarely Question
There is an unspoken lesson many of us absorb:
If I am not reacting, I am negligent.
But leadership—real leadership—often requires the opposite posture.
To pause.
To choose.
To respond only where response is actually yours to give.
This is not about ignoring the world.
It is about refusing to outsource your sense of importance to an algorithm.
A Question Worth Sitting With
Instead of asking, Should I be watching the news?
I’ve found it more useful to ask:
Does this input improve the quality of my next decision?
If the answer is no, then it isn’t nourishment.
It’s stimulation.
And stimulation, over time, is expensive.
Where This Leaves Me—and Perhaps You
I don’t see this as permanent withdrawal.
Nor as a badge of virtue.
I see it as a threshold practice—a way of resetting internal authority at the start of a new year.
There may be a time for intentional re-entry.
But not rushed.
Not reactive.
For now, this much is clear:
When the external noise quiets, your own signal becomes audible again.
And that signal—steady, grounded, unhurried—is often far more reliable than the latest headline.
The Invitation
If this reflection resonates, I invite you to stay connected. 👉 Subscribe to Weekly Strategic Insights for grounded leadership perspectives for advisory firm owners and agency leaders navigating growth, transition, and complexity.
👉 Or, if you sense that 2026 requires a different quality of leadership from you, schedule a complimentary conversation to explore what that might look like in practice.
https://leadingadvisor.com/book-a-call/
You don’t need more urgency.
You need clearer authority—from the inside out.
— Simon Reilly