1. Before performing an act of dubious morality, think "Do I want this to appear on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?"
2. If you are the subject of a controversy that is clearly going to hit the papers, return the reporter's calls. Silence speaks volumes -- particularly if you're the only person who, over the course of the day (you know how they update, these newspaper blogs), doesn't comment.
4. If you are not going to return a reporter's calls, no one is going to take your accusations of "lies" seriously, particularly if you're disputing facts as presented by police. Are you going to threaten to sue the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as you did once before?
5. The sex lives of celebrities, even those of Z-grade widely unheard radio hosts, have been standard fare for media coverage for decades. If you're a family values politician, or married to one, that goes double. No one is going to raise the "Why is this news?" question seriously except for partisans. Complaining about it is like debating the merits of different brands of buggy whips. Was Britney Spears' sister's pregnancy newsworthy? You linked to it.
5. No one is going to take your whining about coverage of your "sex life" seriously when you label kids fair game in dishonest political attacks.
6. If you're going to write a long screed, at least address the immediate topic (i.e., has the affair been ongoing). Not mentioning it, or idle references to your "sex life," could be seen by some as a tacit admission that the latest reports are, in fact, true.
7. Throwing out unsubstantiated accusations of "libel" only makes you look silly. That said, it's good you're not employing the "my husband is a lawyer" threat anymore.
8. You say: "I had no journalistic, nor any professional relationship, with Chief Flynn – nor did I anticipate ever having one again. I was a periodic freelancer who chose the stories I wanted to do and rejected the ones I didn’t." You say this to suggest there was no conflict of interest as you carried on with the chief. This is clearly disingenuous, however, as you continued to write about law enforcement issues that had some bearing on the chief.
10. Is this your final column for the Freeman? Because a self-indulgent piece like this certainly suggests it.