RollingStone has published what can only be called a puff piece on Rachel Griffin-Accurso aka Ms. Rachel. While it does mention some of the controversies in which she has become embroiled, it paints her as a compassionate person.
Here’s an excerpt to give you an idea:
Accurso describes herself as having an overdeveloped sense of empathy. She says she feels physical pain when someone else is hurting. It’s why she was struck in late 2023 when she saw videos of Palestinian children watching episodes of Ms. Rachel, often with the chaos of a humanitarian refugee camp directly behind them. As videos of the war in Gaza continued to flood in, the images stayed with her. When she saw a video of a starving baby in Gaza wearing a rainbow onesie similar to one her then-infant daughter, Susie, wore, it made her so upset she had to give the item of clothing away.
“When I see a mom who has a baby who is starving and they can’t get any milk, I see that and [think], ‘What if that was me and Susie?’” she says. “With Gaza, I couldn’t not speak out.”
—
So she was surprised when her posts about the rising Palestinian death toll were met with aggressive criticism.
—
When Accurso enters the room and sits next to her husband, her face, although smiling, is drawn, like someone has turned down her wattage. The night before, she posted a video on Instagram about an independent U.N. Commission of Inquiry, which found Israel deliberately targeted children in the Gaza Strip, even after the October 2025 ceasefire. “Where have you been, people we look up to? You didn’t want to lose your reputation or your power or your money?” Accurso says in the video, holding back tears. “How can you go to sleep at night knowing you didn’t say anything?”
You’d think the author of this piece, CT Jones, would be receiving a lot of love from the Israel-hating and antisemite crowd for such a glowing tribute.
You’d be underestimating their ability to cancel anyone with even the remotest connection to Israel.
Like having visited the country almost a decade ago.
Even her “I was young and brainwashed” did not seem to appease much of the mob:
I assumed none of them had actually read the piece. How else could they possibly describe such a sympathetic profile as a “hit piece” or “propaganda for Israel”?
And I suspect, judging by the responses, that assumption holds true for most of them. They read the tweet caption and didn’t bother to use their comprehension and critical thinking skills – assuming they even exist.
Others then decided to go on the attack and dredged up this old photo, which was apparently all they needed to know. No need to read what she actually wrote before reaching for the pitchforks.
But that assumption is apparently not a good one in every case:
There you have it. Writing an overwhelmingly sympathetic profile of Ms. Rachel apparently still counts as “propaganda for Israel” if the journalist writing it once visited Israel and refuses to perform the required ritual of publicly renouncing the place.
For these people facts are optional, context is irrelevant, and the purity test is everything.
