Curious.
The key part is because FR posters tend to post articles already in MSM.
In all the MSM articles I saw on this issue Nov. 7-8 (over most of those two days), they did NOT reference Spanier as a guilty party.
I finally found an article that did very late on the 8th and posted it: Penn State assistant coach ran kid camps after ban
That article mentions VP Schultz' attorney implicating Spanier: Schultz's lawyer said the men did what they were supposed to do by informing their superiors of the accusations against Sandusky.
(That part of the article was referencing Schultz & Curley as "the men")
But overall...you have a point...I am surprised by the lack of MSM articles that have seemingly failed to highlight these two sections from the Grand Jury Presentment:
"Curley testified that he also advised Penn State president Graham Spanier of the information that he had received from the graduate assistant and the steps he had taken as a result. Curley was not specific in the about the language he used to in reporting the 2002 incident to Spanier. Spanier testified to his approval of the approach taken by Curley." (p. 8)
And also this note on pp. 9-10: "Schultz confirmed that University President Graham Spanier was apprised in 2002 that a report of an incident involving Sandusky and a child in the showers on campus had been reported by an employee. Schultz testified that Spanier approved of the decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room and the decision to advise the Second Mile of the 2002 incident."
So...what gives with the MSM on failing to highlight a Democrat like Spanier?