In a fiery exposé that delves into the murky waters of local journalism, Craig Hall, the owner and publisher of The Business Times, challenges the integrity and motives of what he refers to as the local “daily” newspaper, the “Daily” Sentinel. Hall’s piece, a direct response to an article published by the “Daily” Sentinel on April 29, 2026, titled “Mesa County looking to subvert legal notices requirement” by Sam Klomhaus, rips into the publication for what he perceives as a biased, inaccurate, and self-serving portrayal of a Mesa County Commissioner meeting. He implores his readers to engage in the unusual act of reading the “Daily” Sentinel’s story, along with his rebuttal, to grasp the full, and highly contentious, truth. Hall argues that the “Daily” Sentinel’s piece isn’t just shoddy reporting; it’s a calculated “hit piece” orchestrated by its publisher, designed to protect its financial interests in printing legal notices. This deeply personal and professional feud touches upon issues of journalistic ethics, transparency, and the evolving landscape of news dissemination in the digital age.
Hall begins by setting the stage, questioning the “Daily” Sentinel’s credibility and its right to receive county funds for printing legal notices, or for any news demanding accuracy. He suggests that the “Daily” Sentinel’s article is so devoid of journalistic integrity that its headline alone should be enough to raise red flags. Yet, he encourages a full read to understand the depths of its misrepresentation. He pointedly notes the absence of a publisher’s name on the article, a stark contrast to his own practice of standing by his words. Hall then recounts his personal experience at an April 28, 2026, county commission meeting, where he claims the “Daily” Sentinel’s “reporter” was either absent or utterly failed to grasp the context of the discussions. He alleges that both sides of the story, when truly examined, reveal a stark, one-sided truth that heavily favors his perspective, effectively undermining the “Daily” Sentinel’s narrative. The article in question, written by Sam Klomhaus, is presented as a prime example of the “Daily” Sentinel’s alleged journalistic malpractice, a piece so flawed it prompted Hall’s extensive, and admittedly longer-than-usual, response. He provocatively contrasts his 26 years of journalistic leadership, where he never dictated coverage, with suspicions that the “Daily” Sentinel’s publisher orchestrated the “hit piece,” highlighting a perceived ethical chasm between the two publications.
Moving deeper into his critique, Hall dissects the “Daily” Sentinel’s use of the word “subvert” in its headline, drawing on dictionary definitions to argue that the true subversion lies not with the county, but within the “Daily” Sentinel’s own financial motivations. He contends that if Sam Klomhaus had actually attended the meeting or reviewed the full transcript, he would have understood the commissioners’ actual concern for transparency and cost-effectiveness in publishing legal notices, rather than a desire to “subvert” public access. Hall sarcastically questions the “fun” in accuracy when significant money is at stake for the “Daily” Sentinel, implying that financial gain overshadowed factual reporting. He then highlights the “Daily” Sentinel’s portrayal of “critics” of Commissioner Cody Davis’s stance, who supposedly voiced concerns about governments hiding information if they controlled legal notices. Hall expresses skepticism about the anonymity of these “critics,” humorously suggesting that Klomhaus might have interviewed his own boss, further implying a lack of unbiased sources. In contrast, Hall observes commissioners seeking cost-effective ways to fulfill legal notice requirements, not to conceal information, but to manage taxpayer money responsibly. This, he asserts, is the core of the story, albeit with much “misinformation” yet to be unraveled.
Hall then tackles the “Daily” Sentinel’s claim that legal notices are primarily paid for by entities like law firms and banks, branding this as a “half-truth” and a classic example of legacy media’s “misinformation.” He passionately argues against the very concept of “misinformation,” believing that citizens should discern information for themselves. He clarifies that these notices are ultimately paid for by county fees, which he cynically defines as another form of “taxes,” ultimately borne by the everyman. The narrative then shifts to Commissioner Cody Davis’s statement regarding The Business Times’ inability to meet all requirements for publishing legal notices under century-old Colorado law. Hall clarifies that Davis did not deem his newspaper “illegal,” as the “Daily” Sentinel insinuated, but rather that it doesn’t fit the archaic criteria for legal notice publication. He challenges the notion that his newspaper is “illegal,” humorously suggesting that its success without mandated ad spending, unlike the “Daily” Sentinel’s reliance on such laws, should be the real focus of scrutiny. This part of his argument highlights the outdated nature of current legal notice laws and their financial implications for various publications.
The critique escalates to a more personal level as Hall delves into what he calls the “Daily” Sentinel’s “personal plea of ‘your local (non) daily needs the money,'” and its alleged attempts to slander him. He cites a direct quote from the “Daily” Sentinel article, attributing to him the statement that he bid for legal notices because he wanted the revenue. Hall, without mincing words, confirms this, exclaiming, “No $#!T!” He then accuses the “Daily” Sentinel of deliberately omitting his full statement to the commissioners, which, if included, would have exposed their own “payola scheme.” He then provides his complete, unedited statement, revealing his strategic, albeit self-serving, bid for the revenue to build his business. Crucially, his full statement advocates for modernizing the system, suggesting that Mesa County should move beyond print entirely, utilizing online platforms for transparency, email alerts, and the Colorado Press Association’s website. This, he argues, would cater to the limited audience for legal notices more efficiently and cost-effectively, thus undermining the “Daily” Sentinel’s entire argument for maintaining the current, print-centric system.
In his concluding paragraphs, Hall turns the tables on the “Daily” Sentinel, questioning their own motives for bidding on legal notices. He challenges their claims of altruism or public service, suggesting that if their intent was truly noble, they would print these notices for free, rather than cashing in on the “millions” garnered over decades. He directly attacks the “Daily” Sentinel for manipulating the law to benefit itself and “Fourth Estate fat cats,” while also dismissing a personal jab from the “Daily” Sentinel’s article that quoted him as saying he doesn’t read their paper. Hall proudly affirms this, attributing his disdain to the very quality of articles like the one he is critiquing. He sarcastically points out that over 90% of Mesa County doesn’t read the “Daily” Sentinel anyway, thus debunking their claim of disseminating “all-important” notices “en masse.” He further questions their exorbitant $250,000 bid for legal notices, especially in light of their significant decline in print readership, suggesting a disconnect between their pricing and market reach. Hall concludes by advocating for the dismantling of this “pay-to-play scheme,” which he believes has long outlived its utility and squandered untold millions. He asserts that those who truly need the information would find it regardless of the medium, but acknowledges that the “Daily” Sentinel, now more reliant on this revenue than ever, cannot afford such a change. Hall firmly states his desire to take over the business, confident that he can perform the service more affordably and with equal benefit to the community, even if his words are once again taken out of context.