Of all the things for Limbaugh to get slammed for, insulting someone seems kinda tame and overblown. Unfortunately, insults seem to be the order of the day for many pundits, and women being called sluts and whores for their contrary opinions is as old as time and pretty much comes with the territory. Not that it should be tolerated or accepted as is - because we shouldn't tolerate this behavior in any public figure as reasonable human beings - but the issues being discussed are more significant.
That being said, you're ridiculous, Jack Williams. There was no bait laid to be taken. As Rickaroo explained, Fluke's sexual activity was never under discussion, and Limbaugh had no basis from which to make such accusations about her. You either haven't listened to his show or have selective hearing if you haven't noticed that he throws insults around without provocation multiple times a show. It's pretty much par for the course with such pundits, and is a popular approach across the political spectrum. People seem to like to hear the opposition party being laden with every insult under the sun, even if it's baseless or unrelated to the issue at hand, and pundits like Limbaugh willingly choose to pander to that. If you like that, that's your choice, but don't try to make excuses for it.
Many of the complaints are without merit, in the sense that TFP choosing not to publish the information won't actually resolve them. In the same way that TFP requested and received the information, your coworkers, family members, friends, enemies, and so on can still request it any time! That is, TFP is not "intruding on your privacy" this way because you currently have no right to privacy in these matters in the first place. If you feel strongly about that, the people you need to contact are your US Congressmen. Otherwise, you're making a big deal just to gain imaginary satisfaction while you remain as vulnerable to privacy intrusions as ever.
On the matter of fair and objective reporting, I agree strongly with the complaints. Elementary statistics teaches that using Average as a measure of central tendency is vulnerable to skewing due to a small amount of outliers. Median is a generally preferable measure to provide, and you can still point out specific outliers as relevant. ... Which I notice is used for the calculation of base pay without any qualifiers for the median years of experience and the most commonly performed jobs.
I haven't reviewed a sufficient number of articles on this to make any kind of definitive judgment, but I will say I'm not surprised that there are people in the comments suggesting motives other than promoting oversight to the publication of this information. It's being handled poorly, though whether through a lack of familiarity with the methods of unbiased management of statistics or other motivations, I couldn't say.