I became involved in a lengthy argument about Chomsky the other day, and found myself sticking up for him against accusations that he was either a dangerous subversive, or (at least) so hopelessly biased against the United States that his views could be of marginal relevance only in the "real world".
The experience reinforced my impression that those who seek to criticise Chomsky's analysis almost always seem to be playing the man rather than the ball, i.e. to be taking issue not with what he says, but why he says it, and/or what the consequences of it might be.
To me, one of the most (seemingly) overlooked aspects of what Chomsky says is that it is largely independent of any particular political perspective. He often refers (with some scorn) to those now referred to as "conservatives" (a travesty of usage), which I think underlines the point that one could be a small "c" conservative in the true sense of the term and still agree with the central tenets of Chomsky's analysis. For example, acceptance of the "propoganda model" as a reasonable fit for the known facts about the performance of the US mainstream media does not require any broader political accommodation on the part of the reader. Nor does it demand any particular conclusions. A statist reactionary could accept the model, and approve of the picture it presents, or even argue that state/corporate influence over the media does not go far enough. An anarchist could accept the model, and condemn the resulting picture as a depressing illustration of the inability of most human beings to think and act outside of constraints set and reinforced by self-interested power.
"Necessary Illusions" is well up to the standard of Chomsky's other work, and enlarges upon the themes of propoganda and indoctrination developed in "Manufacturing Consent". The examples are, as usual, extremely well-chosen, and meticulously set out.
We are extremely fortunate to have him. If only more people in positions of power would take what he says seriously.