I was looking forward to some well thought out strategy to manage the volume of information that I receive. Alas, this article provided nothing to me but alarm

I was looking forward to some well thought out strategy to manage the volume of information that I receive. Alas, this article provided nothing to me but alarm bells, even based on the article's own method of validation. For example, the Dr. Kozyreva wrote several articles on "critical ignoring", yet none of them are referenced. No claims are actually referenced. The "lateral reading" immediately set alarms off in my mind, and I think the recommendation is diametrically opposed to how I believe we should read news. It recommends to do "what fact checkers" do. > Normally we read a website from top to bottom. That's how we learn it in school: to critically examine a text by going through it very carefully from beginning to end. Fact checkers proceed differently: they open another tab in the browser - i.e. sideways - and do internet searches on who’s behind the website. There are an astonishing number of sites that make themselves appear legitimate, but are in fact backed by lobby groups, for example from industry, who try to influence public opinion in this way. In short I interpret this as - abandon the albeit slow, but well thought out scientific method. Trust other sources to make the judgement for you. The author & affiliation are the primary driver of the decision, irrelevant of the validity of the claim itself. Horrifying. According to this, "fact checkers" do not check facts, only who makes the claim, irrelevant of the claim's veracity.