The emphasis is mine. Passive voice was my dissertation topic. Its usefulness in disguising the agent of an action is acquired early by native speakers. Ten-year-olds are fluent in passive voice. Parents are proficient in seeing through the ruses of this usage and in changing the line of questioning as are teachers, vice principals in charge of discipline, and police detectives.
School children get detention when the subterfuge emerges. The New York Times got attention as did, unjustly, Hillary Clinton. She was never implicated as a party to the alleged mishandling and changing the narrative from active to passive voice muddies the waters rather than making that fact crystal clear. They exploited Hillary Clinton's name to generate online traffic and sell papers smearing her in the process. Using this pathetic correction to excuse themselves does nothing in the way of the Times shouldering responsibility for their biased, reprehensible, and equivocal treatment of Hillary.
On Friday afternoon, The Times wrote a new article, including the inspectors’ finding and the change in the description of the referral, as well as Mrs. Clinton’s response that she was confident her emails did not contain classified information. The original article, however, was not altered online until Saturday morning to take account of the change in description of the referral from “criminal” to “security.” Editors should have added a correction sooner to note that change.Times should have done as soon as the errors were discovered was to apologize loudly and in bold on the front page. Own up, as children learn to do, and make it as public as was the initial, faulty report on Hillary Clinton's actions and assault on her character. This obscure play by play, a Greek apologia, does nothing to redress clear journalistic malpractice and falls far short of what the Times should have done.
You got it wrong, NYTimes! Make that very plain to American voters. Apologize!