Is there a specific claim you're questioning? The book is largely an analysis of media; as such, while people can disagree or agree with the more normative assertions and analysis, the core factual content is relatively uncontroversial. Newspapers do rely on advertising, etc.

The only section that delves too deeply into history per se is the section on East Timor. The section on East Timor is accurate, in as far as the stated facts such as the scale of the atrocities. It's not an academic history, though.

For what it's worth, while Chomsky's name gets the attention, he didn't write the majority of the book. Edward Herman did. The overall framework, the "Propaganda Model," is Herman's work.

/u/Bernardito has written about MANUFACTURING CONSENT and Noam Chomsky before. More entries about Noam Chomsky can be found in the subreddit's FAQ.