I applaud Rosli Omar's 'Oh, the naivete, Mr Malott' (Aug 7) and Sharaad Kuttan's 'Government's chief propagandist abroad' (Aug 3) which took John R Malott to task for saying that US' action is motivated by freedom and that the US media is independent.

In relying mainly on the work of Noam Chomsky to make their case, they showed there are also battles to fight against the dark forces of democracy and freedom in the so-called land of the free.

But what Sharaad and Rosli should have made clear is that this does not mean Chomsky would condone the Mahathir government for its oppressive treatment of Anwar Ibrahim.

Or that he would be sympathetic towards the Malaysian mainstream media's situation given his condemnation of the US media for essentially serving capitalist interests under the guise of a free press.

Rosli is wrong to say unequivocally that Chomsky's writings or ideas have never appeared in the New York Times . Chomsky has been published, if not as often in the US mainstream media as he might like. And he has publicly lectured on the ills of the US government, the military-industrial complex, and the media.

Chomsky's concern is the dominance of the political-economic elites, whether in the US or elsewhere. I would even venture to add that he would find our mainstream media under the Mahathir government retrogressive, smacking of feudalism.

I can't see him thinking otherwise. Imagine, him agreeing to the Barisan Nasional political parties owning the mainstream media while denying such rights to the opposition, when he has long criticised the less 'flagrant' (to quote Rosli) collusion of interests among the owners of the major US media, the US government and the business sector at large.

Or imagine, him agreeing to our ISA, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and the Official Secrets Act, when he has taken to task US laws, many of which arguably less restrictive when compared to ours, such as the US version of the Official Secrets Act.

Yes, in the final analysis, Chomsky would share Malott's concern for Anwar and condemnation of the Mahathir government. But not Malott's reason about US action motivated by freedom and US media as independent.

Malott's reasoning is certainly indefensible. It is a piece of US propaganda. But Sharaad and Rosli appeared to ignore his concern for Anwar being reprehensibly treated by the Mahathir government. That's like throwing out not just the bath water but also the baby.