Olivia Munn's Opinion On Ms. Rachel Is A Parenting Choice, Not A Political Statement
Every statement can look like a political opinion when you have no media literacy skills.
Tinseltown from Shutterstock, Ms Rachel from YouTube You've probably noticed we're living in politically volatile times. We're also living in a time when screaming into a social media app has been confused with activism, and media literacy is at an all-time low.
If you need an example of how this all overlaps into a chillingly illustrative sign of the times, look no further than the uproar that has erupted over Olivia Munn's comments about children's content creator and activist Ms. Rachel.
Olivia Munn's recent comments about Ms. Rachel have sparked outrage online.
In case you missed it, actor Olivia Munn sparked a huge controversy earlier this week when she remarked in a People magazine interview that she hates children's shows — not because she's opposed to them, but because, as most adults do, she finds them annoying.
"I know kids love [Ms. Rachel]," Munn said in the since-deleted interview, "but the thing is, if I can't watch it, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life going crazy. These kid shows drive me crazy."
Right, because they're syrupy, and noisy, and ear-wormy and… well, annoying. It should have ended there, but instead, Munn's words were construed as a comment on Ms. Rachel's extensive Gaza activism. Ms. Rachel, whose real name is Rachel Griffin Accurso, has raised thousands of dollars for relief efforts and has featured children from the region in her programming, for which she has endured relentless abuse online.
Perhaps that is part of what motivated pro-Gaza social media users to begin lambasting Munn for her supposed criticisms of Accurso. Angry comments accused her of anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel views she never espoused, and of caring more about a show being annoying than she does about the starving children in the warzone.
If they'd bothered to read the article first, it would have been clear that nothing of the sort occurred — Munn was just as candidly annoyed with "Blues Clues" as Accurso's show, and there was no political dimension to her comments. Instead, social media users allowed themselves to be duped by a clickbait headline designed to elicit exactly the response it did. Now, it seems they've gone so far as to threaten Munn's life over something that never happened.
Munn's husband, John Mulaney, says the outrage has now escalated to death threats.
As the uproar reached a fever pitch, Munn released a statement clarifying that in no way were her comments meant to address the situation in Gaza or Accurso's outspoken activism about it. "To Ms. Rachel and her fans, I hear and respect the passion behind your support. I never anticipated the media would single out one small thing I said and distort it like they have," Munn wrote.
It didn't seem to make much difference, to hear Mulaney tell it. In a palpably furious Instagram Story, Mulaney said that the outrage from Munn's comments has resulted in him, Munn, and their two children, Malcolm, 3, and Méi, 8 months, receiving death threats.
"An innocent comment my wife Olivia Munn made about what children's programs we like has somehow — unbelievably — been conflated with not caring about the deaths of children in Gaza," he wrote. "Because of this, my wife and my two kids are now receiving violent and threatening comments and messages in her DMs."
Even Accurso, who was outspoken about how infuriating she found People's article, has come to Munn's defense. On her own Instagram, she posted a message to her supporters to "please be kind to Olivia & her precious family," adding that she does not believe in "hate, attacks, or hurtful comments.
Ms. Rachel herself has been clear: People magazine is the problem here, not Munn. But so are the readers.
In her post, Accurso went on to say that she had been in touch with Munn over the flap, and that "we are both choosing kindness." She also reiterated the point she made in the first place, after the article first appeared: People is the enemy here, not Olivia Munn.
Kathy Hutchins | Shutterstock
After the article went viral, Accurso posted screenshots of People's coverage of Munn's distaste for her show with a pointed caption reading, "I'd rather you cover me advocating for kids in Gaza who are literally starving." In her subsequent post, she reiterated this, writing, "I scroll and see stories that don't matter while seeing that children's immeasurable suffering is being ignored."
And that is part of the bottom line here. People chose to make Munn's comments about Accurso their headline for a reason: They knew it would elicit exactly the response it did. They co-opted people's unconscionable suffering to get clicks on an article.
But it only worked because of all the people who fell for it. All the people who couldn't be bothered to take even one iota of responsibility to do even one second's worth of due diligence to get the context of Munn's comments, and instead began threatening people's lives. Supposedly, in the name of the greater good. Supposedly, in the name of the Gazans who starved to death while they typed out hate comments to Olivia Munn on an iPhone oceans away.
As Mulaney put it in his Instagram Story, "You took a nothing comment to a dark and dangerous place. This kind of behavior isn’t activism." No, it's not. And it is not only helping to distract from the realities in Gaza, but helping lend credence to the propaganda attacking those who have advocated on behalf of Gazans.
So congratulations, "activists." You fell for it. And you made People magazine a ton of money in the process. To think all that time and energy spent DM'ing death threats to Olivia Munn could have been directed toward the actual cause. Oh well, better luck next time.
John Sundholm is a writer, editor, and video personality with 20 years of experience in media and entertainment. He covers culture, mental health, and human interest topics.
