The Rotten Beef Scandal of 1872
When a local market was accused of selling diseased meat, the ensuing war of words revealed the thin line between journalism and extortion in early Seattle.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The highly respectable and reliable market house of Booth, Foss and Horst had the misfortune to receive by shipment a dressed animal which was afterwards proved to have died by accident. Their skilled workmen thought the carcass had a suspicious look, and hence not a pound of it was offered for sale. Instead, it was put in soak, awaiting inquiry into whether it was the body of a healthy animal killed for beef. The facts were soon ascertained and made public. This incident, for which the proprietors were in no way to blame, was made the occasion of a foully libellous attack upon them by a rival market man through the columns of the Intelligencer. Mr. Booth presented the editor of that paper with explanatory letters, which were refused publication unless he would pay for their insertion at advertising rates. Every editor is held by law liable for libellous publications; the publisher who for pay will allow his columns to be made a medium for malicious libel upon the character of reputable tradesmen, and then demand pay for their defense, grossly abuses the privileges of his position.
“The publisher who for pay will allow his columns to be made a medium for malicious libel upon the character and business of reputable tradesmen, and then demand pay for their defense, grossly abuses the privileges of his position.”
Long before digital clickbait, local newspapers held the power to extract 'protection money' from businesses under the guise of printing or suppressing scandals. This 1872 dispute highlights the historical struggle for journalistic integrity in Seattle, predating modern debates about media bias and the monetization of outrage.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.