No, I just get tired of what strike me as bad faith arguments. Chomsky gives reasons why he thinks those papers are worth reading, in spite of their ideology, which he has dedicated a lifetime to combating. He is not promoting their ideology; he has written whole books and been in documentaries and given talks rejecting that ideology. He is probably one of the most prominent voices in the world rejecting that ideology. But he is a scholar of media and reads all kinds of publications whose ideology he rejects. He has given reasons why he finds those two important to read. You know this as well as i do, just as you know he does not think US is a paragon of democracy. So why then use these things to try and discredit him, unless you have a personal animus? Der mentioned reading Ha'aretz - how this whole thing started - which I also frequently read articles from. Does that mean I subscribe to the ideology of its editors? It's a crazy argument. Like the thing about him being "disgusted by 'emotional' language in testifying to pain and injustice", when he has spent a lifetime exposing his own government's responsibility for pain and injustice all over the world, listening to the emotional testimony of victims of that injustice, travelling all over Cambodia, meeting with organisations in Latin America, visiting Lula in prison, meeting with Nasrallah, Palestinians in the West Bank, etc, etc, etc. What he has said is that if he were a charismatic speaker - which he admits he is not - he would not use the gift because he doesn't want to convince people by the force of his rhetoric, but by the facts. That's a decision he has made for himself and which I've never heard him advocate for anyone else. It's a far cry from the comment you attributed to him.