First things first: by all accounts, David Horowitz is a bit of a kook, to put it more politely than others would. His participation as an editor & writer here can't help but taint this collection a little.

However, there is very good stuff in here. It serves as a good retort to a lot of the basic and really deceptive tactics that will be familiar to anyone who's read Chomsky's stuff.

I personally haven't read anything of his in decades, but I certainly went through a phase in the 90s where I delved into the deep end of his interviews & books. I recall very well what I now recognize as logical fallacies & real misrepresentations in his works.

This book does a pretty good job in laying out what's wrong with what he does. The opening section on Vietnam, Cambodia, the Cold War & his media theories in particular were very well done. The rest of it isn't quite so essential, and I think the authors are on thin ice trying to tie Chomsky to Nazis and Holocaust deniers.

But overall, it's worth a read if you're one of the folks who went through a Chomsky phase in your misspent youth. It offers valuable insights and a different perspective on Chomsky's ideas and the way he presents them.

One of the main critics of Chomsky mentioned in the book was his citations to his own work. However, I don't see anything wrong with that when someone initiates fundamental ideas in a topic.

The critics regarding Chomsky's ideas and explanations on socialist Vietnam (after the war) were acceptable to me.

I don't agree with the writer when it compared the US and China regarding doing evil things. I think it is inappropriate to count the number of people sentenced to death as a measure of evilness.

Instead, I believe that the consequences of actions on other nations are of much greater importance. We should focus on how a country's actions impact the lives, rights, and well-being of people in other countries. This broader perspective allows for a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of a nation's behavior and its moral standing in the international community.

I've made several attempts to wade through Chomsky's political diatribes. However, his blatant animosity towards the U.S. and Israel has completely dampened my interest in what he has to offer.

This book aligns with many of the opinions I had already independently formulated regarding his anti-American stance. I firmly believe that we should always maintain a healthy dose of skepticism towards every so-called "expert," and this encompasses the contributors to this work as well.

I found the book appealing as it corroborated what I had already observed. Nevertheless, I'm always ready to keep an open mind. After all, no one is perpetually right or always wrong.

Recently, I engaged in conversations with some of his disciples who revere him as an unerring savior. I suppose I simply can't fathom that the I'm-too-intelligent-for-you-to-grasp mentality is anything other than a manifestation of megalomania.

It's essential to approach such figures and their ideas with a discerning eye and not blindly accept everything they say.

There were certain things that I wholeheartedly agreed with several years ago, but as time has passed, my perspective has evolved, and I find myself no longer in agreement with them. Similarly, there were actions that I took years ago that I now choose not to repeat. This does not make me duplicitous or inconsistent. Instead, it is a natural part of my growth and development.

We are all constantly evolving beings, and it is only right that our beliefs and behaviors adapt and change over time. As we gain new experiences, learn from our mistakes, and expand our knowledge, it is inevitable that our views will shift.

Embracing this growth and change is essential for our personal and spiritual well-being. It allows us to become more open-minded, empathetic, and understanding individuals. So, let us not be afraid of change but rather welcome it as a sign of our progress and maturation. After all, as we all should be, we are on a journey of continuous growth and self-discovery.

As Christopher Hitchens noted in his later years when discussing his differences with Noam Chomsky, Chomsky "did not ultimately believe that the United States of America was a good concept. He essentially thought it had been a history of genocides since Columbus. And that's not a significant oversimplification of his view."

There was a period when Chomsky had some influence on my perspectives. The way he presented facts with such certainty and a "matter-of-fact" tone made it difficult not to believe him. And like all extreme stances, there are indeed real facts interspersed. Many of his points about the US are actually valid. However, this book does reveal a kind of narrow-mindedness or mild autism that Noam Chomsky is inclined towards. While most conflicts have various shades of grey, Chomsky can only see black. He definitely should still be read, as his influence on political groups is immeasurable. But we ignore him at our own risk, whether to learn about the moral failings of the West or, in many cases, to expose his blatant lies and fabrications.

As it turns out, "Manufacturing Consent" is applicable to all sides of the political spectrum. And Chomsky is one of the unappealing leaders in this regard.

I was truly intrigued by this book as it offered a criticism of the propaganda model, which I had personally regarded as almost gospel. For the sake of intellectual honesty, I was eager to hear counterarguments. To be frank, the counterpoints presented seem to suggest a poor understanding or even a downright malicious misconstruing of Chomsky & Herman's argument. Here, I'll outline the general arguments and debunk them.

1. "They ignore revelations by the media of corporate and government misconduct that wins awards and gains reputation." Firstly, those journalism awards are often meaningless, just an incestuous display of mainstream publications praising each other. But that's not the main point. Chomsky doesn't claim the media has never reported on corporate or government misconduct. The issue is that it only reports on what it is allowed to. If a paper's sponsor is company X and it reports on the misconduct of company Y, that's fine as it doesn't harm the sponsor. The same goes for government misconduct. You can attack one president to support the other, but if your publication favors a certain candidate, you won't be allowed to attack them.

2. "Different media outlets have different political views and disagree often." This is also rather silly. These outlets can disagree on issues that don't really matter. One "left" source might say the Proud Boys are the biggest threat to democracy, while a "right" source says it's Antifa, and then both attack something like single payer healthcare. All they've done is push the same narrative to two distinct audiences, making both conservatives and liberals oppose single payer healthcare.

3. "Can't explain the popularity of conservative shows. If people wanted to hear Chomsky's far left, they wouldn't voluntarily tune in to conservative shows." I'm not sure what their point is. Obviously, conservatives exist and want to hear their own views. The point is that regardless of whether there is a right or left wing bias in the press, when you tune in, you are being propagandized by those who run the outlet, and their interests color the coverage.

4. "Ignores new media like the internet." Well, who runs the largest news sites? The mainstream press. Even if you ignore that, collecting news is expensive. Newspapers serve as scripts for other forms of relaying the news. If you can afford to run newspapers, which aren't as profitable as they once were, you can control the narrative. The internet can and does act as a counterweight to the mainstream media, but that doesn't prove Chomsky wrong.

5. "This isn't new! It's just Marxist false consciousness." That's not a real criticism and doesn't refute anything.

I only read the section on the propaganda model, and if this is the quality of argument, I have no interest in reading the other sections. However, I might go back and update this review to refute more of it.