Wall Street Journal morons wonder: Who’s behind Hot Air’s attack ads? Update: WSJ issues correction

posted at 5:29 pm on June 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s come to this, my friends. Having been routed this morning on the Senate floor, the open-borders shills at the WSJ turn, as they must, to vengeful, vintage-nutroots conspiracy smears. From the people who brought you the feelgood slander video of the year:

Hot Air Network’s Web ad … urged “conservatives fed up with Republican scheming on this bill, [to] do something about it. If you gave to the party in the past year, you can demand your money back. Call the Republican National Committee today and demand a full refund. If you gave to any senator or congressman in the past year, call their office and demand a full refund.” Just who sponsors Hot Air’s ad, and other similar ads popping up across the Internet, is unclear.

That paragraph refers to this ad, which, FYI, cost us $300,000 to produce. Today’s Brownback spot cost $450K, but that’s only because Bryan suddenly upped his voiceover rates overnight. Thank goodness our secret backer can cover it.

And to think, MM claims she can’t afford to buy me an iPhone.

Exit question: Might there be … New York money people behind this? MM owes us an answer.

Update: MM answers.

Update: We don’t use DV for the ads but otherwise, spot on.

Update: That didn’t take long.

Hot Air Network’s Web ad, embedded below, urged “conservatives fed up with Republican scheming on this bill, [to] do something about it. If you gave to the party in the past year, you can demand your money back. Call the Republican National Committee today and demand a full refund. If you gave to any senator or congressman in the past year, call their office and demand a full refund.” Hot Air is a conservative online broadcast site run by blogger Michelle Malkin…

Correction: An earlier version of this post said it wasn’t clear who produced the Hot Air ads.

Update (BP): Actually, we do use DV. But no tape. Figure that one out, WSJ.

Just in time for this week, we did deploy an advanced new weapon that the crack reporting staff at the WSJ might want to look into, if they’re of a mind to actually ask questions of those of us involved. I’m not going to give them the plans or any access to my new battle station, but I’ll divulge its code name. I call it the Gateway. It’s fresh from our super-shadowy digital guerrilla gear pipeline known only as “Tiger Direct.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

WSJ needs a you-tubing!

Dusty on June 28, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Okay, Dusty said it better.

Kralizec on June 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM

It’s true, she is the Kwisatz Haderach

Zorro on June 28, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Haha! You did not just make that reference!

PRCalDude on June 28, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Yes! Michelle is the new media super being… sort of.

Zorro on June 28, 2007 at 6:54 PM

HA!

They changed the story and posted a “correction”.

Correction: An earlier version of this post said it wasn’t clear who produced the Hot Air ads.

whimps… Senator Switchback wants to party with you!

SilverStar830 on June 28, 2007 at 6:55 PM

The second statement is even more dishonest than the first. They didn’t correct what they had said. They lied about what they said.

First statement:

Just who sponsors Hot Air’s ad, and other similar ads popping up across the Internet, is unclear.

Second:

An earlier version of this post said it wasn’t clear who produced the Hot Air ads.

There’s quite a difference between “producing” and “sponsoring.”

Gregor on June 28, 2007 at 6:57 PM

I agree. It removes the sinister implication behind “sponsoring”.

But whatcha gonna do? This was fun.

see-dubya on June 28, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Herewith, find enclosed virtual check for $1,000,000 to produce your next attack video.

Your friend,
Frank

franksalterego on June 28, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Taranto takes time off to move and the WSJ falls apart!

ShoreMark on June 28, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Snorting my $5 cheap shamnesty victory wine out my nose.

Michelle on June 28, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Finest screwcap wine in the country.

Guinness doesn’t need an occasion it’s perfect any time.

Speakup on June 28, 2007 at 7:05 PM

And to think, MM claims she can’t afford to buy me an iPhone.

Hang in there. December v2 of iPhone is coming out. Put on your Festivas list

Wade on June 28, 2007 at 7:10 PM

The WSJ video is no longer there….I missed it. Anyone know where I might see it?

JetBoy on June 28, 2007 at 7:12 PM

This is so funny I don’t even need a beer now!

I enjoy reading Best of the Web, but I’m not sure I can stomach giving them the traffic now.

Of course, if Sam Adams wants to sponser me, I’ll change my mind about the beer and post about the experience…

MamaAJ on June 28, 2007 at 7:16 PM

No mas! No mas!

Comments were disabled on the WSJ post!

see-dubya on June 28, 2007 at 7:16 PM

After the hammering that WSJ took in the comments, the latter are now closed.

baldilocks on June 28, 2007 at 7:17 PM

I am Sooo glad Michelle and the crew at Hot Air are on my side.

Lawrence on June 28, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Yeah, I was about to taunt Mary Lu Carnevale a second time, but comments were locked just in time.

See-Dubya (commenting at 6:50 pm) has already spanked Ms. Carnevale for her incorrect correction, but here’s the original text, for good measure: “Just who sponsors Hot Air’s ad, and other similar ads popping up across the Internet, is unclear.” Just who taught Ms. Carnevale how to craft ad-hominem insinuations is unclear.

I wonder if Ms. Carnevale locked them herself.

Kralizec on June 28, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Now they turned off comments on their story. I guess they got tired of being lambasted… thin skinned twirps.

SilverStar830 on June 28, 2007 at 7:21 PM

I wonder who sponsored that video of the WSJ Editorial Board meeting? The one where they had the Marie Antoinette impersonator contest. It was hard to tell who won because they were all so good.

drunyan8315 on June 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM

No mas! No mas!

Comments were disabled on the WSJ post!

see-dubya on June 28, 2007 at 7:16 PM

I bet some 18 year old jorno intern wrote that article and now is desperately trying to save his own butt

AlexB on June 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Guess again, AlexB. She’s been there since 1994.

see-dubya on June 28, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Strange times we live in – next the WSJ will be against free speech. Public spanking of some big hinies.

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Wall Street Journal:Hot Air is a conservative online broadcast site run by blogger Michelle Malkin……………Heh Heh

sonnyspats1 on June 28, 2007 at 7:29 PM

In fact, as of September, she’s Assistant Washington Bureau chief.

see-dubya on June 28, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Herewith, find enclosed virtual check for $1,000,000 to produce your next attack video.

Your friend,
Frank

Hmmmm

Should’ve included LINK

franksalterego on June 28, 2007 at 7:33 PM

And she’s written some good stuff in the past.

see-dubya on June 28, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Heh, Michelle hit WSJ advertising gold today, no platinum. They replaced the ‘who’s funding’ with “HA’s run by conservative…Michelle Malkin”. Talk about free advertising, well not quite free, when considering the ingenuity and effort to produce the ad.

Bravo! It’s a greater day than I’d already imagined.

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 7:35 PM

“What is this ‘Hot Air’ of which you speak?”

WSJ dolts. Go back to what you’re best at: pushing for more H-1B Visas.

Dave Shay on June 28, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Dare I say it? HA becoming more influential in shaping conservative intellectual arguments then WSJ. It’s quite possible.
Spirit of 1776 on June 28, 2007 at 5:34 PM

I think HA certainly is more in tune with the conservative base.

Keli on June 28, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Mary Lu,

Not to take anything away from Hot Air and Michelle Malkin, but damn, my kids can make YouTube videos like this with zero budget and my DVD recorder. What color is the sky on your planet when you are suggesting that someone is bankrolling these videos?

You guys are dinosaurs and the comet is coming.
Comment by NSC – June 28, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Awesome.

Spirit of 1776 on June 28, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Keli on June 28, 2007 at 7:59 PM

It’s true for me. I said it some weeks ago here, but WSJ lost me when they started insulting the intelligence of their readers.

Spirit of 1776 on June 28, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Eh, it obvious: the WSJ has humping robot envy.

So where’s the tip jar for Allah’s I-Phone?

Nichevo on June 28, 2007 at 8:13 PM

see-dubya:

Guess again, AlexB. She’s been there since 1994. In fact, as of September, she’s Assistant Washington Bureau chief. And she’s written some good stuff in the past.

Then why would she do this…

AlexB on June 28, 2007 at 8:14 PM

I bet if you made up a million or more bumper stickers saying WHERE IS THE FENCE? YOU WOULD BE A FRIGGIN MILLIONARE!!

build the wall on June 28, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Michelle, it sounds as if your shamnesty celebration wine is the high end product of the Hiney Winery of Tuttle, Oklahoma, vinted by the famous Hiney brothers Thor and Big Red. Did you by any chance buy the sixpack, or did you just buy the single can?

ogrrre on June 28, 2007 at 8:22 PM

If you gave to any senator or congressman in the past year, call their office and demand a full refund.”

Didn’t the WSJ understand this ad was a humor piece? They of all ivy twined elites should know it is easier to get a Country Club publican to give up his Mexican gardener then to shake a refund out of his well stuffed wallet.

Chase the species RHINO.DEM.countryclubicus down a dark alley and the last ballast to go overboard are the greenbacks. club membership cards, and hereditary seats in the Senate and House

entagor on June 28, 2007 at 8:31 PM

a “real” conservative is a crypto-marxist class warrior.

jummy on June 28, 2007 at 8:33 PM

our super-shadowy digital guerrilla gear pipeline known only as “Tiger Direct.”

Heehee, I’ll never look down on my cheapo Epson printer again.

infidel4life on June 28, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Didn’t the WSJ understand this ad was a humor piece?

No entagor, this would not have occured to them. They think FrankJ actually wants to nuke the moon. And they’ve read the Chronicles of Dubya

RonRockstar on June 28, 2007 at 9:08 PM

I call it the Gateway. It’s fresh from our super-shadowy digital guerrilla gear pipeline known only as “Tiger Direct.”

Bwwaaahahahahaa!!! Beautiful, Bryan. Congratulations on a job well done, and I hope you’re celebrating.

I am.

Pablo on June 28, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Guinness is neither a lager nor an ale.

Everything is either a lager or an ale. Ales are top fermented. Lagers are bottom fermented. Guinness is an ale.

More detail here.

Pablo on June 28, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Just to check I tried http://hotair.com/about/ and it gives me a 404 currently.

Anyone else?

Titus Flavius on June 28, 2007 at 9:25 PM

AllahPundit says:

I call it the Gateway. It’s fresh from our super-shadowy digital guerrilla gear pipeline known only as “Tiger Direct.”

Next time Michelle invites us to participate in another one of those surveys aimed at “enhancing our understanding of the readership,” maybe these sorts of questions should be included. I guess I’m the nosy, meddlesome sort, since I simply MUST know if Slappy Sue shops at “Tiger direct”. Hmmm. I wonder if the Humping Robot uses a Gateway?

My collie asks:

CyberCipher, you’re not following every move that Paris Hilton makes too, are you?

CyberCipher on June 28, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Hilarious. Maybe they should ask Peggy Noonan for some tips on how this whole blog thing works…

JackOfClubs on June 28, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Bwwaaahahahahaa!!! Beautiful, Bryan. Congratulations on a job well done, and I hope you’re celebrating.

I am.

Pablo on June 28, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Me too Pablo! Viva la Estados Unidos!

I’m having a big old bowl of American vanilla ice cream with whole bunch of American chocolate syrup!

Drtuddle on June 28, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Whatever you do, don’t tell WSJ about the $25 you pay each of us every time we post.

right2bright on June 28, 2007 at 10:45 PM

I could make that movie for 19.95 soooo if you want you next attack ad to be better… I’ll make it for you for half what you paid last time….

Kaptain Amerika on June 28, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Thank goodness our secret backer can cover it.

Dang it AP! You weren’t supposed to rat me out like that!! You can just forget getting anymore cash from me!

heh heh heh.

csdeven on June 28, 2007 at 11:35 PM

The ridicule es muy bueno, Senor Allah.

Jaibones on June 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM

The WSJ staff are bunch of simpering Momma’s boys.

I wonder how long before they vote to boycott Israel, and America while they’re at it.

SilverStar830 on June 29, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Mary Lu needs to lose her job–and her journalism license…

urbancenturion on June 29, 2007 at 3:17 AM

Dude, I know about free speech, but:

“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.”
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

urbancenturion on June 29, 2007 at 3:17 AM

So what do you call it when a blog, started less then 18 months ago, completely POWNS a major newspaper?

Bryan needs to edit the humping robot video to include the robot having his way with a copy of the shamnesty bill and the WSJ. The more debauchery the better.

F15Mech on June 29, 2007 at 4:16 AM

Golly, I’m getting slow of mind as well as body in my dotage.

It took me a minute to figure out that you were ‘just funnin’ with that $300,000 & $450,000.

Man, I’m getting so mentally defective that if I can just lose another 20 or 30 IQ points I’ll be qualified to write for the Wall Street Journal.

So what do you call it when a blog, started less then 18 months ago, completely POWNS a major newspaper?

And does it on a startup budget of about what the WSJ Editorial Staff spends on a single working lunch.

That is why dinosaurs like the WSJ are going to go extinct; They are unable to grasp what a few very talented and savvy people are able to do with modern consumer-level technology and shoestring budgets.

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2007 at 6:12 AM

And does it on a startup budget of about what the WSJ Editorial Staff spends on a single working lunch.

That is why dinosaurs like the WSJ are going to go extinct; They are unable to grasp what a few very talented and savvy people are able to do with modern consumer-level technology and shoestring budgets.

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2007 at 6:12 AM

In other words, Hot Air does more with less, the WSJ does less with more. It’ll be interesting to see how things stack up in, say, five years or so.

ReubenJCogburn on June 29, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Hello?

Attack ads aren’t effective unless there is something there to stir.

They’re totally oblivious to the fact that only 20% supported this piece of crap.

drjohn on June 29, 2007 at 9:06 AM

run by blogger Michelle Malkin

They call her a blogger to marginalize her, of cource. They couldn’t say that she was a nationally syndicated columnist…

She’s have credability then…

swj719AWG on June 29, 2007 at 9:15 AM

There’s quite a difference between “producing” and “sponsoring.”

But after reading the parts you quoted, aren’t they still saying its “unclear” who’s behind the ads? A real correction would explicitly state who funded/sponsored/created/produced the ads, not continue the obfuscation! Does the WSJ still not know the facts behind the video???

taznar on June 29, 2007 at 9:51 AM

Mary Lu needs to lose her job–and her journalism license…

urbancenturion on June 29, 2007 at 3:17 AM

Nevermind Carnevale’s job, except to say that I’m still in favor of Ms. C’s working for whomever will hire her. This talk of her “journalism license” is a much more interesting matter, urbancenturion, in the same way that unicorns are more interesting than ponies. You’re just joking about her losing her license, right? I mean, she doesn’t have one. If you don’t already know, she’s practicing journalism without a license, and that’s the way we like it. If you have access to “a press,” you can press whatever you want onto a piece of paper. And your editor can tell you, “Hey, that’s great” or “Hey, that svcks,” and you can say, “Thanks, boss” or “Okay, I’ll fix it” or “Okay, I quit.” And you can go find another press, or even just press pen to paper, and there’s nothing the U.S. Congress can do about your freedom to press ink onto paper, unless they change the Constitution–or just ignore it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….
No license is required. John McCain, a frightening but absurd martinet in the U.S. Senate, has tried to change that with his “campaign finance reform.” It’s just one of many attempts that people have made to “regulate,” i.e. abridge, your press freedom. So far, the Americans’ system has largely withstood such attacks. Please remember which side you’re on, urbancenturion.

Kralizec on June 29, 2007 at 10:10 AM

I call it the Gateway. It’s fresh from our super-shadowy digital guerrilla gear pipeline known only as “Tiger Direct.”

lmao

Nurse, get the patient a new sarcasm drip.

Readymade on June 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM

They made a number of mistakes/omissions in their posting on their blog too.

Switching Votes

Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas switched

Didn’t mention switching during the actual vote, just from Tuesday to Thrusday!

Three of the Senate’s newest members switched sides—Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, Virginia Democrat James Webb and Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, who was sworn in this month.

Incorrectly stated that Barrasso switched his vote! Barrasso voted against cloture as his first vote on Tuesday!

SSG Fuzzy on June 29, 2007 at 11:29 AM

The WSJ types have a saying they truly believe.

“Whoever has the gold makes the rules.”

Everyone can see HA and MM changing the rules so they must have the gold. Right?

Hmmmmm, maybe the new ‘gold’ has more to do with intellect than shiney metals.

TunaTalon on June 29, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Speaking of brews… I think I’ll uncork a bottle of Chimay (blue label) Ale … God Bless the Trappist Monks (and Hot Air, of course). It’s time to celebrate!

Zorro on June 28, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Oh man… that blue label Chimay is good stuff!

Bryan, we need a cafe’ section to HotAir.

ricer1 on June 29, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2