The main issue with CNBC, The Financial Times, and other news outlets is that the Signal to Noise ratio in the financial space is extremely low.
Conceptually, you only want to act upon information that has predictive power. A lot of the bits of info you find on financial news portals may be good in explaining what has happened in the past, but that doesn't automatically mean that can be used to forecast future returns.
Even in statistics, it's easy to confuse explanatory vs predictive modelling.
If an information is widely available, or even, is in line with the consensus opinion, that usually has little predictive power - and the current price already reflects that information.
For example, if you hear everyone talk about inflation for a while, there's a chance that everyone has already moved onto more inflation-resistant assets. You don't know whether you'll be the last one to make this move, before there's no one left, and the trend inevitably reverses, and you realizing your losses at the worst possible time.
Keep in mind, that as a person who reads the (financial) news, any information that you get your hands to has been already processed and reacted upon by professional investors. Your guess of the future will be most probably a worse version of their guesses - at least in terms of speed.
You could spend days on reading about a specific company, or listening to macro prophets about their views on where the world is going - but contradictory nature of these predictions may simply not help you in making investment decisions. For every Soros who believes you should invest all your money into Gold, you'll find a Dalio one who thinks it's a dumb idea. You have to make your own decisions. But it's easy to get trapped there...