Of course, it's necessary to have a Learned Scholar assist in interpreting the Chomsky model. Times have changed. For example, where Chomsky says this...
"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."
...we replace (5)b. with "communism and socialism" as a national religion and control mechanism. When Chomsky wrote that paragraph, he was looking at a specific geo-political matrix and from his personal bias.
I'm not certain that m0gliE understood this in the prior discussion, although it should be obvious.
A "propaganda model" is an abstraction. It exists, but differs in various differing cultures. Saudi Arabia obviously has one differing from the current US model, or the classical Communist Russian model, or the current Russian model, etc, etc.
Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).
Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.