Let me help you with a reference. And I’m going to ask you to do the opposite of what my headline for this column says to do. In this case I’d prefer you embrace the local “daily” this one time to prove my point and seek out and read what was written.

It’s important. It’s also a better reason why the county should never give our local “daily” one red cent when it comes to printing legal notices – or any news needing accuracy, for that matter.

Truthfully, you shouldn’t need to read beyond the headline. But I encourage my readers to plow through this pablum, which should have a publisher’s name on the byline instead of one of his minions. I mean, when I have something to say in The Business Times, I put my name on it. But that’s just me. Same as that ONE TIME I made public comments at a county commission meeting – which I attended, and judging by the “daily’s” reporting, its “reporter” did not – on April 28, 2026. I was actually there specifically to be quoted.

But our local “daily” couldn’t even get those in context. I urge you all to read for yourselves both sides to the story. This time with the rare case where the truth doesn’t meet somewhere in the middle, but is rather heavily to one side. So, to help my readers, the story I am referring to was printed in the “Daily” Sentinel in its April 29, 2026, edition by Sam Klomhaus and titled, “Mesa County looking to subvert legal notices requirement.”

Once you read both sides, you’ll have all you need to know. But I’m going to expound on this anyway. I just don’t know if I can keep all that’s wrong, inaccurate or defamatory in the story to around 1,000 words (I can’t, this will be longer than normal). After all, there’s usually plenty of fodder for the target(s) when a newspaper is writing a hit piece at the behest of the publisher. Must be why I’ve never told any of my reporters what story to cover, or who to go after, in my 26 years at the helm.

Who knew a retail guy who came from a family of educators would be better at publishing than an attorney from a publishing family? Then again, who thought the publishing family would prove the retail guy’s argument for him? Two newspapers going in two different directions.

But back to that headline, created for effect and coercion from the minutes of the April 28 commissioner’s meeting. Let’s start with the obvious: The word “subvert.” To help Sam (and his publisher) the most, we’ll just go to the Devil and Daniel Webster.

Subvert means to undermine, overturn, or destroy an established system, authority or institution, often through sneaky or indirect means. It involves corrupting morals or weakening principles from within, effectively “turning something over from below.”

There’s no question the depths this news “story” was conjured from. So, Sam got the assignment right. But the true subversion regarding the printing of legal notices is in the details of the story from the recipient of the county’s state-mandated largesse, not on the dais. After all, if Sam was at the meeting and listening or read the entire transcript for full context and understanding instead of cherry-picked gotchas, he would have heard the commissioners state how important the posting and transparency of legal announcements to the citizens is to the county commission.

But where’s the fun in accuracy when so much money is on the line?

Isn’t it incredible how in today’s political climate things are seen so differently. The “daily” sees subversion and intent to not print legal notices – going as far as writing, “Critics of Davis’ stance have said giving governments sole control over their legal notices would make it easier for those entities to hide information from the public” – while not stating who those “critics” were (I’m thinking he interviewed his boss). Meanwhile, I saw county commissioners saying the exact opposite while trying to find a way to print what is mandated in a more cost-effective manner.

That’s it. That’s the story. Well, not the whole story. Plenty of “misinformation” yet to cover. Some of it is very personal.

How about the ol’ adage that legals are paid for by “entities other than the government such as law firms and banks?” You know, two entities leftist publications tell readers to hate. Boogeymen. This half-truth is where legacy media is expert at “misinformation.” For the record, I don’t believe in misinformation, only information citizens must figure out for themselves. That said, they are paid for by fees the county collects. And as we all know, the word “fees” is just another way our state, run by a certain publisher’s best pal, subverts calling confiscation “taxes.”

And who pays ALL taxes in the end? Yup, you and me.

What about trying to say Commissioner Cody Davis said “the other publication does not meet the legal definition of a newspaper under Colorado law?” What Davis said was The Business Times doesn’t meet all the requirements of this century-old, continually-updated law to publish legal notices. He didn’t imply my newspaper was illegal, although the “daily” just did. Exactly how is The Business Times illegal? Is it the fact we don’t need laws mandating people spend ad dollars with us when they don’t want to, or could do it more affordably elsewhere? Because THAT should be illegal.

On to my personal favorites from this personal plea of “your local (non) daily needs the money,” in its attempt to slander your favorite publisher. How about this ditty? “Craig Hall, publisher of The Business Times, the other respondent, spoke at the County Commissioners (sic) meeting Tuesday, saying he bid for the legal notices because he wanted the revenue.”

No $#!T. I’d love to have the business in providing this service to our county. But as the “daily” is wont to do, it left out the whole quote, because it didn’t serve its purpose, which is to subvert readers knowing its role in this payola scheme.

Here’s the full statement I read to the commission on my bid:

“I won’t lie, I bid on this for the revenue. Revenue which I could use to continue to build my business. But I’ll add this point. Even though I bid because the law says these notices must be published in a newspaper, I don’t think Mesa County should have to put them in print at all. After all, the publishing business has changed dramatically over the past century since this original law was passed.

Simply put, the county should be able to post these notices online as it does literally ALL of its business in today’s environment of transparency. The limited audience for legal notices can find the notices via online searches, be alerted via email (or through associations they are members of, handwritten in) that they’ve been posted and even the Colorado Press Association runs a website where all notices must be uploaded by law even after publication … for a fee, of course.”

Of course, that doesn’t help the “daily’s” case whatsoever. Here’s the other question to the “daily”: Why are you bidding? It sure isn’t out of altruism or public service. Because if it was, you’d have been printing these for free instead of the millions you’ve garnered over the decades. You’ve been more than happy to cash in on this gravy train, changing the law as time goes to benefit you and your Fourth Estate fat cats.

But the “daily’s” minion saved his best for last. And yes, it’s a personal shot. It’s also a dud. Here it is: “Hall noted that he does not read The Daily Sentinel.” Damn right I don’t. Mainly because of stories the quality of this one. Why is this line even in the story?

Careful down South on Seventh, the collective yawn from that yarn is about to swallow most of Mesa County whole. Hey, Jay (Seaton), this may come as a shock, but over 90 percent of the county doesn’t read the “daily.” So much for your claim in getting these all-important notices out “en masse” in the only “legal” newspaper in the county. Then again, our local commie rag known as “The Revolutionist” might just qualify with the Post Office as “legal,” according to you and your competition-eliminating lawmaker buddies in Denver.

I wonder, after losing nearly two-thirds of your print readership in the 26 years I’ve been here, does your pricing reflect it? It doesn’t appear to be, if your $250,000 bid is any indication. Charge more, reach fewer, doesn’t seem a good sales tag. The fact is these postings only reach a select few and have since the day The Daily Sentinel (and other legacy newspapers) used the Colorado Press Association to get the law written to open the spigot.

It’s time to shut the water off on this pay-to-play scheme that maybe at one time had some validity. Think of the untold millions wasted over the years, especially lately. The folks who need this information would find a way to get it, no matter where the information was being made available. Problem is, those who now rely on the money more than ever can’t have that. This “story” and other editorials in your paper over the years have proven that.

So, for the record, yes, I’d love to have this business, because I can do the job more affordably with the same benefit to our community. You can quote me, although I’m sure it will be out of context.

In Truth and freedom.

Craig Hall is owner and publisher of The Business Times. Reach him at 424-5133 or publisher@thebusinesstimes.com