I can't speak to the equation between homophobia and your comments about mother******* little queens and ****sucking paparazzi. I leave that to those who take offense.
As as Jew, I consider accusations that Israelis are like Nazis to be anti-Semitic. Yet when I overhear someone talking about Jewing a guy down in a business deal, I consider the context and don't always label them as bigots. What is anti-Semitic and what isn't is between me and my fellow Jews, and those who say such things. Likewise, I leave judgments about the definition of a homophobic slur to you and the gay community that takes offense.
But while the homophobia issue continues to get sorted out, I can still say that I liked your MSNBC show and think it's a shame that you've been chased out of the New York life you wanted to lead. But here's my question: Why didn't you feed the media beast? As you know, folks build a luxury brand by making sure most people can't afford what they're selling. The scarcity is what creates value: I have it, you can't, so I'm worth more than you.
Likewise, the tabloids know that getting candid shots of Alec Baldwin in "real life" will sell because they're harder to get, like trying to pull a deer out of an alligator's mouth. But why didn't you try to bring down the value of those shots by flooding the market? Why didn't you constantly work the press, stopping cheerfully and often whenever needed, giving the paparazzi more shots than they could possibly need, letting them overeat until they became so gorged and exhausted, their appetites so sated, that they would eventually begin to hunger for something better and more scarce? Like, for instance, a telephoto shot of Kate Middleton kissing her husband behind a tree somewhere.
I would think that a year of Alec Baldwin flooding the market with charming shots of him wolfing down a New York slice or nibbling at a street vendor's pretzel or dropping his glove in the slush as he gets into a cab -- all of which feature his smiling eagerness to relentlessly pose until the paparazzi gets bored by his generosity -- would so dilute the Baldwin brand that eventually any particular photo among the thousands would become nearly worthless. It's just a matter of supply and demand: a sweaty and disheveled Michelle Obama in a track suit -- who cares? But a shot of Hillary without makeup? Ka-ching goes the register.
Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan diminished the value of their brands because they showed the public too much of themselves. They saturated the market with their presence, and thus their sticker-prices dropped. The same will likely happen to Miley.
So why not give them a stack of Alec photos showing that he lives the same private life as most of us other schmucks on the planet? It'll remind everyone that most people look better in clothes than they do naked, i.e. Alec Baldwin is more fun to watch when he's talking about brass balls and real estate on the big screen than when he is caught slurping a Manhattan egg cream at Yonah Shimmel's.
I'm guessing that your media consultants have suggested this and you just don't have the patience to put in a year of beast-feeding and the inclination to arrange a beer summit with influential members of the gay community. If not, perhaps these questions might prompt a reconsideration of a possible re-entry into public life. And I wouldn't worry about how the turnaround would be covered in the press. You know: ****-'em if they can't take a joke.
By the way, I liked you in Beetlejuice.