Lately the news on Western media dedicated a lot of attention to the Finnish prime minister party scandal. But looking into the details of the story there is not much to deserve a scandal, at least to a normal person. However they claim that comments from social media users and other people harshly criticise her behaviour. Furthermore allegedly there was so much suspicion of potential drug abuse that she took a drug test.
Is there something else that the media don't report in order to justify all this fuss or is it a publicity stunt?
Note: I put the word scandal in my question simply because the media call it a scandal. I don't know how it should be called. For example in any BBC online article there is a link with the caption Party photos and scandal: What now for Sanna Marin? Although the title Sanna Marin: How much partying is too much for a leader? is different still puts it as a scandal.
I see that some users call into question her opponents or even political enemies. But this is not a question about single politicians, this is a question about the media attitude. Let's make it clear that in the modern world the media is a political actor and they choose which is the tone to give to to their reports. The events described in the news may or may not be the result of actions done on purpose, but that does not matter. What matters is what events the media choose to report and what evidence they choose to give to those events.
From the comments below it seems that it is not clear to many that calling a "scandal" minor events will make little or no political damage to the politician, but it will generate a lot of attention. News outlets know this very well, they always evaluate with the help of psychological studies how their reporting will be perceived by the public. Defining such wave of news political attacks or discredit operations make little sense.