So...the LA Times DIDN'T endorse Obama?

I'm not sure whether to laugh at this or not! Talk about fuzzy thinking...

Last week, the LA Times--as far as I'm concerned--endorsed Obama, which is quite clear from the headline that accompanied their endorsement. It says in plain English, "LOS ANGELES TIMES ANNOUNCES FIRST PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENTS SINCE 1972." Seems pretty clear, right?

Well, in a comment in one of their blogs, a reader wrote that "The L.A. Times, SF Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News have all endorsed Obama." So someone--I don't know who, since they didn't take credit--added a "correction" to that person's comment. The "correction" says, "the LA Times did not endorse anyone. As our item on that editorial pointed out, it was the newspaper's independent Editorial Board that endorses candidates. Got nothing to do with the news side of the newspaper or this blog for that matter." Is it just me, or does this sound like talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Even if a paper's editorial board DOESN'T have anything to do with the "news side" of the paper, does anyone in the general public make a distinction between an editorial board's endorsements and the PAPER'S endorsements? I know I don't.

If you're so inclined, you can see the exchange I'm referring to in this thread about Tuesday's California exit polls; the comment I referred to was written by "Joseph" at 10:53pm on Feb 7.