Reply #36: Chomsky says about MIHOP, "they'd have to be insane".

[rman]

Chomsky also says that much of what the powers that be do, is "perfectly sane within their insane frame of mind".

Also it's not that Chomsky just "doesn't do conspiracy theories"; he is convinced that there was a conspiracy to undermine labor unions - but he thinks that because he has proven it, analyzed and sourced as is all Chomsky's work.

But wrt to 9-11 he has no evidence of conspiracy. This is in large part due to the fact that he is not so much concerned with what individuals do as he is concerned with what institutions do.
He does not so much trace the network of connections between the individuals within those institutions - but that is not to say that the latter is not a valid approach. It is not the only valid approach, but neither is institutional analysis.
Basically Chomsky's approach is not the sort of approach that helps uncover conspiracies. And being the scientist that he is Chomsky is not going to make claims for which he has no evidence, nor does he think there's much of a point to speculate about it.

I can see what he means by

"The conspiracy approach will lead people to believe that either:

(a) They should educate the malefactors to change their motives, or

(b) They should get rid of the malefactors and back new editors, writers, newscasters, or owners."

Many people indeed do think that our problems will be solved if only we can either get the bad people to behave, or by getting rid of them all together. When the thinking is limited to that it's understandable that some people even want to be militant about it.
But there are also those think that the above would at best bring some short-term improvements, and that the only real remedy against these kind of big conspiracies (while realizing that much of what happens is not so much a result of conspiracy but one of self-interest) is to educate people, as to change certain aspect of the (media, political and economic) system.

I think the issue can be summarized with one question: "what would anyone need deception/propaganda for, if not to cover something up?".
Much of what's covered up is ('merely') malicious self-interest - but that does not exclude "secret planning" to serve those malicious self-interests.
It's not that much of a stretch from "hidden agenda" to conspiracy, but before concluding that there actually is conspiracy, it must be proven. And to prove it requires a different approach than that of Chomsky (which obviously is not to say that Chomsky's work is without value).