Interpreter’s Radio Program Bites the Dust

[Moksha]

Surely the Interpreter Foundation—not the slightest bit “obsessed” with BY, and/or whitewashing BY’s story—will spare some time to discuss Pattirini.

No stories that will upset the Brethren and get the Interpreter cancelled. Leave that story to the accurate historians. Leave that story to the accurate historians who have no chance of getting hired and fired from BYU.

[Doctor Scratch]

That is painful. I honestly feel embarrassed for Interpreter the same way I used to feel embarrassed for those faithful who bore inappropriate testimonies on Fast Sunday back in my youth. Are the Mopologists so utterly disliked that they can't find anyone with a basic technical background to help them at least get the audio to a listenable level? It's absolutely ridiculous. Anybody on the planet, it doesn't matter how poor the country, could put up a self-made YouTube video that looks and sounds better than this. This is an organization funded by millions and millions in donations!

And the backgrounds! Don't even get me started here. The Scripture Central folks had blurred rooms that showed real bookshelves in the background and a place fit for study. One of the Interpreter guys has the camera facing a wall, and the other has a stock background with fake books. It makes it look like these guys are a couple of rubes who don't read or study or have any connection to their topic, just a couple of old friends recording a video call and then throwing it on YouTube.

And then the standard Interpreter no preparation or editing. Just fumbling their way into the topic. I didn't make it past 10 seconds. Even if I wanted to I'd have to hunt down headphones to listen to it. I have a few hundred watts going into my desktop setup here and if I put these guys up to a level where I can hear them, I risk damaging something if I forget about it and switch to another channel, or there's sudden mic noise and surely they aren't using a limiter or compressor.

Indeed--there are problems galore! And get a load of the Afore's commentary:

I mentioned the other day that we at the Interpreter Foundation have decided to turn our weekly Sunday evening Interpreter Radio Show into the Interpreter Foundation Podcast. A number of factors (and frustrations and concerns) went into our decision — including, most recently, the radio station’s decision to move its studio (for at least the fourth or fifth time since our show began) to a new location, making the drive much longer for our all-volunteer hosts, and including, also, steadily improving podcast-related technology.

LOL. "Frustrations and concerns"? So it would seems that the nastiness is starting to creep out. Just how *bad* was the radio station? Were they abysmally terrible morons? Meanwhile, the utter cluelessness of the "improving podcast-related technology" is perhaps the biggest howler of this explanation. Yeah, wow: those Interpreter folks sure are taking full advantage of the available tech! ROFLOL!!!

[Doctor Scratch]

Ah, but wait! I've just read the Afore's most recent post, in which he *admits* that the show is awful!:

Okay. So I invited you the other day to look at the first two products of our new Interpreter Foundation Podcast and to offer any suggestions that you might have for its improvement. Yesterday, I finally got a chance to look at it myself and, well, it was awful. Embarrassing. The production quality is absolutely terrible. So I want to thank you all for not writing here to say what you could, quite justifiably, have said. You might have had me contemplating a plunge from a cliff.

*Ahem.* He should be thanking *us,* no? I mean, it's not as if Ideeho or The Last Danite were calling his attention to this, right? His "explanation" continues:

There were specific reasons for that disastrous quality and, both by telephone and via email, a few of us have been discussing them and what steps we’re intending to take to ensure that things become better in the future. For one thing, we’re likely to opt in the near (and perhaps in the middle) term for an audio podcast rather than a video podcast. (Some have always preferred that approach anyway.) In any case, be assured that we’re aware of the issues and that we won’t be continuing in that vein. And that no extra guards need to be posted on local cliffs and bridges.

Move along! Move along! There’s nothing to see here!

I hate to break it to them, but merely moving the show to a purely audio format is not going to fix the issue(s). That said, it would have the benefit of proving that they are essentially incapable of producing a watchable YouTube podcast. And, once again, all of this would seem to support my initial speculation: which is that *they*--the Mopologists--were not the ones who ultimately made the decision to part ways with the radio station, but, rather, they were either kicked out, or the station used passive-aggressive methods to get them to take a hike (such as, perhaps, deliberately moving locations so that the Mopologists would get irritated and leave).

[I Have Questions]

From what I can see, the issue isn’t location, it isn’t technology. It’s competence. I watch people putting out great quality YouTube videos using just a DJI Pocket 3, a clip on microphone, and a bit of post production in a simple Apple App on a lap top. School kids using iPhones produce better quality output than this.

And then there’s the competence of Interpreter’s oversight. How on earth was this train crash allowed to be broadcast? Who was accountable for signing it off? Don’t they have any kind of supervision or peer review before putting Interpreter’s name on it? I assume they’ve taken it down straight away?

It’s a staggering own-goal.
A candidate for this year’s Top Ten list.

[drumdude]

I’m about to fall out of my chair. I did not expect 2025 to be the year that DCP actually acknowledged any criticism here as legitimate.

Surely Christ must be coming down from on high and the end times are here.

[Moksha]

Perhaps Dr. Peterson could consult with Kwaku on how to make the program more appealing.

[drumdude]

”Sound" quality and "sound quality" may sound the same, but while one reflects on poor audio equipment, the other reflects on quality that is firmly encountered. Or in other words, when something of quality is "sound," then it reflects upon the superior attainment of an item's qualifications. Whereas the Interpreter Foundation may have encountered some issues with "sound" quality, rest assured that the quality of research, white papers, articles, movies, podcasts and other information distributed by the Interpreter Foundation is always of a "sound" nature, or of the highest quality available.

I couldn’t resist reposting this gem from one of DCP’s most fervent ball washer boys from his blog’s comment section.

With praise like that, who needs a wife?

[Gadianton]

So I want to thank you all for not writing here to say what you could, quite justifiably, have said

So we're on the record now for brazenly avoiding criticism? Why thank them for allowing persisting errors? Does this reveal something about the expectations of the restored gospel, to bring oneself to a psychologically unstable state such that, the barest light of truth is so personally destructive, peers must engage in cover up?

If I make a mistake I welcome my peers to point it out so that I don't persist in looking like an idiot.

deliberately moving locations so that the Mopologists would get irritated and leave

It could be the definition of Okham's Razor.

I watch people putting out great quality YouTube videos using just a DJI Pocket 3, a clip on microphone, and a bit of post production in a simple Apple App on a lap top. School kids using iPhones produce better quality output than this.

They've even offend so many school kids that they can't get help from them either? All their grandkids are totally done with their nonsense?

Whereas the Interpreter Foundation may have encountered some issues with "sound" quality, rest assured that the quality of research

This makes me wonder if the poor production is deliberate to avoid responsibility for the content. If a person risks their electronics if not their hearing persevering through the "podcast", then there's no chance of the content getting criticized either, is there?

Even if they fix the sound problems, which is hard to imagine happening, they'll have such a chaotic approach to the material that nobody will invest the time to come to a position on it. The Taylor fiasco shouldn't take more than 10 - 20 minutes at the very most to cover. Spending hours on it is the classic Mopologist -- look at this mountain of material we've produced that the critics refuse to deal with!

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m about to fall out of my chair. I did not expect 2025 to be the year that DCP actually acknowledged any criticism here as legitimate.

Surely Christ must be coming down from on high and the end times are here.

It is an absolutely devastating admission in terms of what it reveals. First—yes, you and IHQ are right that it is shocking to see him admit that any of Interpreter’s output is in any way flawed, let alone “terrible.”

But this also speaks to the lack of oversight—or, dare I say? peer review at Interpreter. Did no one bother to check the quality of this before they slapped it up on YouTube? And is it *still* posted there, or have they taken it down now that the President has publicly admitted that it’s “terrible”?

I suppose that he at least deserves credit for *recognizing* that it’s terrible, but the problem here is that it is not really that far off quality-wise from Interpreter’s usual output. Which tells you that the President is not paying meaningful attention to what his own organization does. Once again, we see support for the notion that Interpreter exists solely to provide Daniel Peterson with an excuse to avoid a senior mission.

It is genuinely shocking to read this sort of thing:

After considerable discussion that began several months ago and grew more intense within recent weeks, we at the Interpreter Foundation have decided to move on from our long-running radio program and to turn, in its place, to a video and audio podcast.

“Considerable discussion”?? What on earth were they talking about? The fried shrimp that the President ate during his trip to Missouri? Was the conversation “intense” because of how angry Martin Tanner was over the thought of having to commute an extra 15 minutes to do this admittedly “terrible” podcast?

Doctor Robbers is insightful as always:

Even if they fix the sound problems, which is hard to imagine happening, they'll have such a chaotic approach to the material that nobody will invest the time to come to a position on it. The Taylor fiasco shouldn't take more than 10 - 20 minutes at the very most to cover. Spending hours on it is the classic Mopologist -- look at this mountain of material we've produced that the critics refuse to deal with!

All the evidence points to them not caring. It’s like they’ve given up on the idea of “defending the Church.” They are simply barfing things up onto the website. No one bothers to check if it’s “good” or not—it’s just about maintaining DCP’s streak, so he can use it as an excuse to get out of actually serving the Lord’s One True Church.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Here is a podcast from Dan McClellan today. Dan is actually hiking while podcasting, but his video is not shaky, unlike the Interpreter's podcast. Dan is using a $400 GoPro with a handheld stick: https://youtu.be/dWH1Cf9-Nco?list=TLPQM ... zKJA&t=338

The Interpreter should be ashamed.