Though not wholly unproblematic, creators like Rachel Accurso, better known as Ms. Rachel, have made themselves key players in the debate over children’s media. An entertainer for young children, Carlow is best known for her creative, interactive, inclusive educational approach. She has come under increasing fire from right-wingers looking to cancel her. The source of the backlash is her vigorous pursuit of paid family leave. It stems from her sensitive productions that capture the plight of Palestinian children, which have elicited outrage among numerous right-wing pundits and commentators.
On-screen, Ms Rachel’s content is full of a loving inclusivity, incorporating things like an ASL interpreter to welcome all kinds of viewers. Her unwavering desire to uplift the voices of marginalized individuals and communities has made her a target, with some conservative organizations accusing her of being antisemitic. Critics have turned their wrath toward Linda Sarsour after Ms. Sarsour shared a video of a three-year-old double amputee from Gaza. They claim she’s pushing their narratives on stories that make them look bad.
The hounding of Ms Rachel has become particularly pronounced in the past year. Earlier this year, in 2023, she came under attack from the right. This dispute started after her working relationship with non-binary musician Jules Hoffman—who frequently graced her program with their presence—was put on blast. This collaboration has fuelled charges of “anti Christian bias” and other inflammatory charges from individuals trying to destroy her character.
In reaction to these spats, some right-wing talking heads have been demanding probes into Ms. Rachel’s operations. According to news reports, the US Attorney General has already received five calls to investigate her ties. These calls are fueled by unfounded accusations that she is accepting money from Hamas. These claims have been overwhelmingly proven false, debunked, and thoroughly discredited, but they remain a staple among her critics.
The discussion around Ms Rachel is part of an alarming phenomenon — one in which all those who dare to question prevailing narratives are quickly and ruthlessly dealt with. As Bari Weiss noted, we now live in an “era of That Which Cannot Be Said,” where dissenting opinions risk public vilification and cancellation. This sentiment resonates with observations made by Ben Shapiro about vulnerability; he stated that “virtually everyone is vulnerable if they run afoul of the Left’s interests.” This notion, while often framed in a left vs. right context, is echoed by others who argue that “virtually everyone is vulnerable if they run afoul of the right’s interests.”
The consequences of this outrage go beyond Ms Rachel’s day. Michael Moynihan remarked on the trajectory of anti-woke figures, suggesting that “one didn’t have to be especially prescient to spot those ‘anti-woke’ types who would just slowly become MAGA flunkies.” This move raises interesting questions about why campaigns would ever target someone like Ms. Rachel. It challenges us to think about the broader societal impact of our work.