I’ve been using The Economist’s “The World in Brief”, which sounds like much the same thing. I’m six weeks in to the news diet, and am much less angry all the time.
Maybe the real source of anxiety is people have justified anger but no where to direct the anger to affect change?
Maybe it is better to keep reading the news and organize people to make it so we do not have any bad news to report.
The reason they were pro-EU is that there were no realistic arguments where Brexit would benefit The UK’s businesses, finance sector or economy as a whole.
They were pro-EU for ideological reasons. Leaving had no effect on the British economy, which isn't what they predicted.
I think this statement contradicts reality somewhat.
If being a member of the EU was objectively a benefit to most UK businesses then that is what I would hope to read in an FT editorial, not some Kumbaya "it's all good, we have no opinion".
Something like Ground News, but even there I'm not sure I trust their algorithmic weighing.
The FT post-dates the original pink 'un sporting newspaper, but was also, and still is, commonly referred to as "the pink 'un".