This atricle by the Washington Post takes on a different, and quite unique angle on the scandal that has been talked about vigorously these past two weeks. The angle surrounds the Secret Service director, Mark Sullivan, his personality, and how he's handling the situation.
Toward the beginning of the article, it mentions the disposition of Sullivan, which seems unusual to put in an article at all. But reading more of the article, the small details of Sullivan add to the story, showing that he's a respectable man who has to take care of an extremely messy situation. It seems to evoke a sense of pity for him, that he has to bear a heavy burden though he was in no way involved in the scandal.
The same feeling of pity goes on when the article metions that this scandal is the second one that Sullivan has had to fix. The first came from 2009, when two uninvited guests made their way past security to a White House state dinner, where he essentially had to take the blame and spoke in court to try and smooth out the issue.
The many sources in the story help build a good picture of Sullivan's career and reputation. The article also did a good job of balancing Sullivan's successes and failures.