There's no crime, no fault, no reluctance, no failure. These are core elements of the verb "admit." Confessed and admitted are interchangeable.
The use of "admitting" passes judgement on both the act and acting party. It expresses disapproval, it suggests the acting party has a guilty conscience or should.
Misused in this way, it fails the basic principle of unbiased journalistic integrity and moves into advocacy and editorializing.
The journalist is implicitly making a moral call on the policy.
A child admits breaking a vase. A politician admits cheating on a spouse. A thief admits embezzling money.
That was my point. They use the word "admitted" instead of, say, "stated," or "emphasized," or "explained," as a way of making it seem like the speaker is on the defensive, even when no such thing is true.
It is only one of numerous ways in which allegedly "objective journalists" introduce editorial content into pretty much any story they print. It is one of the reasons why I, and millions of others, won't read their drivel any more.
Better to get your news from a source that is up-front about it's biases. Less work, having to pick through the snarky passive-aggressive editorializing that interlards every paragraph of the MSM.