Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point. We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word. If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word? The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.
If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.
Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere? Of course. But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught. We can't have one and not the other.
For me, it's because he originally defended his article.
Personally, I think everyone involved has always acted in their own best interest. It is in Tiger's best interest to follow the rules as best as he can and to not intentionally cheat. It is in Chamblee's best interest to write opinion pieces that get people talking because they're going to come back next month to see what he says next.