Professionals vs the community

Through high school I was very active on an online video game forum. This was when I first noticed people's tendency to hate wrong information on the internet. People would correct each other over and over and a topic that was left unsolved would always be active until THE right answer was found or the argument turned into a slew of insults. During this time I also noticed tension between the opinions of the members of the forum. Some members believed that the best "strategy" for the game was that which the professional players were using with no possible deviation (or only minor deviations in the right situation) from that strategy. Others believed that strategies they had tried in their games would be useful and they would try to figure out other strategies that should work either mathematically or rationally. These two viewpoints would often conflict with the former side usually saying that if the strategy was good enough the professionals would already be using it. That reasoning doesn't make complete sense though. Professionals, or experts, although very knowledgeable can't know everything. The collaboration between people can sometimes come up with new insights. Bias is also greatly reduced when a large number of people teach compared to one person.

I find communal acquisition more useful than authoritative acquisition usually. In a philosophy class for example, there are multiple points of view for any subject. Although the teacher will try to be objective and present each side equally, it is usually very clear which side the teacher likes the best. The students then don't worry about learning why that side is better for their own reasons but rather why the teacher thinks that side is better so that they can appease the teacher. The same happens in math classes where a particular approach to solving a problem is preferred by the teacher and that is the one that is learned by the students instead of exploration of other methods. Bias can never be completely removed but communal knowledge can greatly reduce it which is what makes communal knowledge so valuable.

What would an apology accomplish?

For this offense I believe an apology would accomplish a lot. For the headline writer especially, a good apology might decide whether he gets another job in the same field as he was working before. As such an unpopular figure currently no company in their right mind will hire him and let him start writing headlines again. After proving his remorse however he could maybe be trusted. For the man who said the racial slur on air, an apology might help restore his image slightly although at the same time a bad apology might further hurt his image. The apology he did issue contained the phrase "My wife is Asian" which was not appreciated by many Asian people. ESPN has the most to gain from an apology. As an entire organization they need to make it clear that this behavior is unacceptable from their employees. They are supposed to be the "worldwide leader in sports" and as so racism can't be a part of their company. Treating the situation well might even inspire admiration and make them more likable than they were before.