Earlier today, Howard Kurtz held his weekly chat where he covered such topics as FEMA's fake news conference, the future of the Wall Street Journal, and the coverage of the Redskins in the Post. Some excerpts:

Washington: I cannot believe the White House spokesman's response to the FEMA "press conference" was that the White House wouldn't do it with staffers pretending to be journalists asking questions. The White House response should have been "it was wrong" -- that's it, nothing else. It was wrong. And they wonder why FEMA is the butt of jokes?

Howard Kurtz: Michael Chertoff, who oversees FEMA as the Homeland Security chief, says the bogus news conference is the dumbest thing he's seen in government in a long time, and I agree. How anyone at FEMA thought this was a remotely acceptable idea, and thought they could get away with it, boggles the imagination. (Especially since FEMA's response to the California wildfires had been decent, and now this is the only thing anyone will remember.) But I don't think it's fair to blame the White House for this. Dana Perino made it quite clear that the White House did not approve of this make-believe event.

...

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Things happen so quickly then they stall out -- haven't been keeping up since the original hubbub. Please reemind me: The Murdoch buyout of the WSJ happened? He's already ensconced in the throne room? Reporters have quit willy nilly; new ones with the right bent have already been hired? The pages have already been made over? It looks like a thicker version of the New York Post? How far down the rabbit hole here (above) have we fallen? Thanks much.

Howard Kurtz: It's a done deal but it hasn't formally closed yet, so Murdoch isn't in charge yet (though he's visited the newsroom and talked with editors and reporters). A few reporters have quit to accept other offers, despite, in a couple of cases, personal appeals from Rupert. I don't know if any have been hired, but undoubtedly more will be, as Murdoch is talking about expanding the Journal's coverage of politics and culture.

...

Annandale, Va.: In recent weeks, the Redskins have warranted "above the fold" attention on the front page of the Monday Post. A stranger to these parts would have thought the team won the Super Bowl with such coverage. Why is it that The Post feels the team deserves such front page attention, especially for a regular season game against Arizona? Other world-renowned papers of record -- the New York Times for example -- do not go to such lengths. I know the 'Skins are big here, but come on ... the front page? What is the sports page for?

Howard Kurtz: The theory behind the Post's coverage of the Skins is that they're not just huge, they are a unifying force across a region in which many people come from somewhere else. The Times isn't a fair comparison, because virtually all of the Post's circulation is in the D.C. area, whereas perhaps a third of Times copies are sold in New York City. Having said that, there are times when we certainly overplay the Redskins. I could argue that the deciding game of the World Series is more important (especially when the Skins were going down in a 52-7 blowout).