Editing Noam Chomsky (section)

=== Reactions of critics and counter-criticism: 1980s–present ===
In the 2004 book ''[[The Anti-Chomsky Reader]]'', [[Peter Collier (political author)|Peter Collier]] and [[David Horowitz]] accuse Chomsky of [[cherry picking|cherry-picking]] facts to suit his theories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cook |first=Christopher R. |date=2009 |title=A Cold Eye Assessment of US Foreign Policy: It's the Policies, Stupid |journal=International Studies Review |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=601–608 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00877.x |jstor=40389146 |quote=The common critique is that he is often selective about his facts to fit his theories (Collier and Horowitz 2004).|issn=1468-2486}}</ref> Horowitz has also criticized Chomsky's [[anti-Americanism]]:<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 26, 2001 |title=The sick mind of Noam Chomsky |url=https://www.salon.com/2001/09/26/treason_2/ |access-date=July 28, 2023 |website=Salon |language=en |archive-date=July 28, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230728210540/https://www.salon.com/2001/09/26/treason_2/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=For 40 years Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the [[Great Satan]]; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them.}}

For the [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] public policy [[think tank]] the [[Hoover Institution]], Peter Schweizer wrote in January 2006, "Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income." Schweizer criticized Chomsky for setting up an estate plan and protecting his own intellectual property as it relates to his published works, as well as the high speaking fees that Chomsky received on a regular basis, around $9,000–$12,000 per talk at that time.{{sfn|Schweizer|2006}}{{sfn|Lott|2006}}

Chomsky has been accused of treating socialist or communist regimes with credulity and examining capitalist regimes with greater scrutiny or criticism:{{sfn|Bauerlein|2005}}{{blockquote|Chomsky's analysis of U.S. actions plunged deep into dark U.S. machinations, but when traveling among the Communists he rested content with appearances. The countryside outside Hanoi, he reported in ''The New York Review of Books'', displayed "a high degree of democratic participation at the village and regional levels." But how could he tell? Chomsky did not speak Vietnamese, and so he depended on government translators, tour guides, and handlers for information. In [Communist] Vietnamese hands, the clear-eyed skepticism turned into willing credulousness.{{sfn|Bauerlein|2005}}}}According to [[Nikolas Kozloff]], writing for [[Al Jazeera English|''Al Jazeera'']] in September 2012, Chomsky "has drawn the world's attention to the various misdeeds of the US and its proxies around the world, and for that he deserves credit. Yet, in seeking to avoid controversy at all costs Chomsky has turned into something of an ideologue. Scour the Chomsky web site and you won't find significant discussion of Belarus or Latin America's flirtation with outside authoritarian leaders, for that matter."{{sfn|Kozloff|2012}}

Political activist [[George Monbiot]] has argued that "Part of the problem is that a kind of cult has developed around Noam Chomsky and [[John Pilger]], which cannot believe they could ever be wrong, and produces ever more elaborate conspiracy theories to justify their mistakes."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Katerji |first=Oz |date=November 24, 2017 |title=The West's Leftist 'Intellectuals' Who Traffic in Genocide Denial, From Srebrenica to Syria |language=en |work=Haaretz |url=https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-11-24/ty-article-opinion/the-wests-leftist-male-intellectuals-who-traffic-in-genocide-denial/0000017f-f346-d8a1-a5ff-f3cec4320000 |access-date=July 15, 2023 |archive-date=March 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315204708/https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-11-24/ty-article-opinion/the-wests-leftist-male-intellectuals-who-traffic-in-genocide-denial/0000017f-f346-d8a1-a5ff-f3cec4320000 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Anarchist and primitivist [[John Zerzan]] has accused Chomsky of not being a real anarchist, saying that he is instead "a liberal-leftist politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty, linguistic theory. Chomsky is also, by all accounts, a generous, sincere, tireless activist—which does not, unfortunately, ensure his thinking has liberatory value."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zerzan |first=John |title=Who is Chomsky? |url=http://www.primitivism.com/chomsky.htm |website=Primitivism.com |access-date=July 28, 2023 |archive-date=February 21, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221023457/http://www.primitivism.com/chomsky.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Defenders of Chomsky have countered that he has been censored or left out of public debate. Claims of this nature date to the [[Reagan era]]. Writing for ''[[The Washington Post]]'' in February 1988, [[Saul Landau]] wrote, "It is unhealthy that Chomsky's insights are excluded from the policy debate. His relentless prosecutorial prose, with a hint of Talmudic whine and the rationalist anarchism of Tom Paine, may reflect a justified frustration."{{sfn|Landau|1988}}