E200 Toutes les bonnes choses ont une fin

InnerFrench

Hugo and Ingrid announce the conclusion of the InnerFrench podcast after nine years and 200 episodes. They reflect on the challenges that le

Key takeaways

The podcast is officially ending at Episode 200 to mark a symbolic milestone.
Hugo cited 'impostor syndrome' as a significant pressure when discussing complex subjects like sociology and economics.
The integration of AI in research was noted by Hugo as a factor that diminished his creative satisfaction.
Ingrid is launching a new podcast titled 'Ingrid Immersion France' focused on geography and history.
A new hospitality project called 'Nidouillet' is being opened by Ingrid in Toulouse to host travelers.

Main topics

End of InnerFrench
Reasons for stopping
History of the podcast

Notable quotes

All good things have an end.

Conclusion

A bittersweet farewell that celebrates a decade of language education

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:04) All good things have an end. Hello everyone, hello Ingrid. Speaker 2 (0:15) Hi Hugo, how are you? Speaker 1 (0:18) Well, it's okay, I have a bit of a track, I would say. To have a track is when you are afraid, for example, to do a presentation in front of people or to do a show if you are an artist. I did dance for a while so I remember that before getting on stage When I was young, I had the trach. There too, I have a little trach because we're going to record a pretty special episode. Speaker 2 (0:48) Yeah, I admit that I also feel weird. This morning, I had a little bit of opposite emotions at the same time. I was looking forward to talking to you about what we're going to talk about because I like big news in general. But at the same time, I would say a little sadness, a little anxiety too, about how it's going to go on, about the rest, all that. Speaker 1 (1:15) Yeah, so we're not going to go around the pot any more. I hate people who do that on YouTube or in the episodes. So, you may have understood it with this title but it's the end of the podcast We're stopping the podcast in a French way So here, it's episode 200 We took advantage of the fact that it's a round number We said to ourselves, especially me, that it was a good time to stop And in this episode, we're going to explain the why of the how Why we made this decision We're going to talk a little bit about Speaker 1 (1:53) podcast, the history of the podcast, the work we did together and with you. And then we will also talk to you to finish on a more positive note of our future projects. So here I think I don't Speaker 2 (2:09) know Speaker 1 (2:09) if we will manage to hold 30 minutes, it may be a little longer today but here it is, as it is the last episode, I think we can take advantage of Speaker 2 (2:18) it. Exceptionally, I think yes, it is possible. Speaker 1 (2:22) Let's go ! So to begin, why did we decide to stop the podcast ? You noticed that we took a long break a few weeks ago It was just before episode 197 And it was a break, as we told you, that was not planned because of different personal events, rather on my side Well, nothing too serious, but that's it allowed me to think about a lot of things and then the more weeks passed the less I wanted to resume, to start the podcast again so I started to think about it a lot, to think about it a lot and it's true that when I started the podcast in 2017, the first years each episode was almost only fun and then gradually this pleasure disappeared Speaker 2 (3:22) a Speaker 1 (3:22) little it faded Speaker 2 (3:23) a Speaker 1 (3:23) little It was replaced by a kind of pressure, I would say because I always wanted to do better That's the requirement to make episodes better and better knowing that it's quite difficult to evaluate what a good episode is And then, the more the audience grew the more I also wanted to please everyone and it's true that we started to receive contradictory messages. I'm talking about before you arrived, Ingrid, because when you arrived, things changed. But before you arrived, when the audience started to increase, I received more and more messages with people who had different requests, some who thought it was too easy, others that it was too difficult. And then, of course, I wanted to please everyone and I was going crazy in every way even though it was simply impossible but I couldn't accept that I couldn't make a podcast that pleases everyone So the spontaneity I had at the beginning on the first episodes it started to disappear a Speaker 2 (4:38) bit Speaker 1 (4:38) And at the same time, I had what is called the famous impostor Speaker 2 (4:45) syndrome Speaker 1 (4:45) I think you might Speaker 2 (4:47) have Speaker 1 (4:47) heard that as a journalist But when we deal with a lot of different subjects in a lot of fields, we are not experts in those subjects We have to find information Speaker 1 (5:01) But, well, since we're not experts, we sometimes make mistakes There are things, quite simply, that we don't know, dead ends And, well, I had the impression of being an impostor because I'm not really a linguist Well, I'm a French teacher, but I'm not a linguist Neither a sociologist, nor an economist, nor a philosopher, nor even a journalist And we were doing topics in all these areas So that started to put a kind of pressure on me. I don't know if you felt the same thing before when you were writing articles and then in the podcast. Speaker 2 (5:35) Yes, yes, it's always a problem when you're a journalist and you deal with very diverse subjects. You can't make mistakes. In fact, everyone makes mistakes in their work. But when you do something that is also public, and who has, let's say, a general interest mission. When we make a mistake, it's people who can sometimes make it noticed in a not very nice way. Already, that's a first thing. We'll talk about it Speaker 1 (6:12) again, Speaker 2 (6:12) maybe, but the comments... Well, we're lucky to have a rather kind audience, but still, there have been some really not cool comments. And it's true that I know that, for example, Thank you. Speaker 2 (6:45) which were either false, or were not well explained, or sometimes it was the comments themselves that were wrong, but so it went into a kind of debate, and I remember that I felt really bad. I said to myself, I'm really bad, I have information that is not verified, they are right, the people, etc. And then, well, after that, there was an evolution, I think, in also the choice of... Maybe the choice of subjects, the choice of angles, the choice of not wanting... I can say everything. Sometimes I also learned to formulate things in a more evasive way when it was not my field of expertise. Especially in fact, in the podcast, what was nice is that the idea was mostly to share our voice, our point of view. while admitting that I don't know this subject too well, but I think that's about it, we should check it and hop, we move on to something else. And it's true that it's something that can be beneficial, to say, OK, we're talking about this subject, we've done some research, we're checking the information, but we're not going to dig too deep, because if we dig too deep, we can make mistakes. And then, just to clarify, I think it happens a lot to journalists, Even more so to the news reporters or to the news journalists, even if I'm not very sure they are questioning themselves. Can Speaker 1 (8:07) you explain what a news reporter is? Those Speaker 2 (8:11) who are only on TV or radio, so who are only... present in front of a microphone to comment on the news, to say what they think about it, with often an expert posture, although it is very rarely experts, but otherwise the real journalists, whether they are from the field or those who go far on the field, etc. or even those who are in an editorial office but who prepare their subject by doing interviews on the phone, research, etc. In fact, we always press our information on interviews. Machin said that according to the source, where in the podcast, we can't do that. It would be heavy in a podcast to put lots of sources, lots of quotes. So I think you also have to be nice enough with yourself. It's not the word, I'm looking for another word. Well, benevolent. Benevolent, with yourself, to say, here we propose... a podcast to be able to allow people to hear French, speak in a language that is quite clear and on subjects that interest French people with the point of view of a French person and we will not necessarily say everything, dig everything, etc. Yeah, Speaker 1 (9:29) it's true that it's a bit what differentiated us, I think, what differentiated this podcast from other, maybe, French content that existed at the time. It's that... I had this journalistic approach when I was solo where I said, it's not just going to be the information we always find in French textbooks about, I don't know, traditions, things like that but I'm going to try to go a little further to really make the listeners discover things not just things about French and French but in other fields and my goal was to create a podcast that people would like to listen to even in their mother tongue but it's true that when you don't necessarily have limits in terms of subject choice you can really deal with all the subjects, all the areas even if we still tended to focus on the topics that interested us so we talked a lot about politics, society, culture But I was a little frustrated to tell myself I would like to be an expert in a field, to have real certitudes and to have this feeling that I really master the subject And finally, from time to time, when I spent a lot of time preparing an episode I had the impression of knowing well, of mastering the subject But well, obviously, in fact, it was a little superficial knowledge because two weeks is not enough to master the slightest subject And I think that anyway, even the experts who have certainties, who have spent years dealing with a subject, sometimes they still have the impression of not necessarily mastering it. Speaker 2 (11:07) There are studies that show that the more someone is an expert in a field, the more he will doubt what he says, because he knows precisely how complex the subject is, how it would be necessary to go and check very precise sources. where on the contrary, often, but this is what I was talking about with the experts of Plateau, we see it a lot, affirm things in a very firm way on subjects they don't know well because they don't realize how complex it is. So after that, it will obviously depend on the people. There are some who are more or less comfortable with the idea of believing above the melee. But there are studies that show this difference, that sometimes, typically on a TV set, there will be a super expert in a field and he will speak with much more caution than the chronicler in front of him who will throw out truths that are not actually Speaker 1 (12:12) verified. Especially if they are men and the expert is a woman. Ah Speaker 2 (12:17) yes, that's for sure. Speaker 2 (12:21) It's a joke. Speaker 1 (12:50) Otherwise I could Speaker 2 (12:51) have Speaker 1 (12:51) spent a year on an episode and it wasn't the goal of the podcast at Speaker 2 (12:58) all Speaker 1 (12:58) and it's not something profitable But on the other hand, there was a bit of this frustration which made me find less and less pleasure in publishing episodes The more I published episodes on different subjects the more I realized that what I had said in episodes In fact, there were lots of shortcuts, approximate things, etc. In fact, the more I realized my ignorance and the complexity of things, it was also linked to the fact of aging. I may have gained a little experience since I wrote the podcast nine years ago now. So, well, I've changed a lot too, as a person. Speaker 1 (13:39) So the pleasure has disappeared a bit And then there is also the side... Well, always to continue with the comparison with journalists There are sometimes journalists who become editor-in-chief And at that moment, often they write a lot less articles and they spend more time reading the articles of others or advising them, advising other journalists And I had a bit of that in the sense that I stopped giving classes I stopped teaching the flow directly so I was a bit disconnected from that And it became more difficult for me to put myself in the head of your head, in the heads of the listeners, of you who were learning French And I was more on the side of dealing with the subject in the most complete way possible Whereas before, I think one of the strengths of the podcast was that You and I knew very well the difficulties of learners. We managed to get in their shoes and we presented the subjects so that they were accessible first of all. That was the first criterion, for them to be interesting and accessible. And then finally, it became something a little bit... I speak for myself, but maybe something a little bit of ego. to tell me, here we go, we're Speaker 2 (14:52) going Speaker 1 (14:52) to make a great episode, very complete, with a lot of information. It's Speaker 2 (14:56) going Speaker 1 (14:56) to be impossible to attack us at the level of the comments because we have really solid sources. And here I am, Speaker 2 (15:01) I'm Speaker 1 (15:01) a little disconnected from the learning side, which I think was the strength of the podcast at the beginning. I don't know if you had the same feeling or... Speaker 2 (15:10) Yes, maybe on some things, but I think I have less... intellectualized, let's say, where I am. The fact that it was not my business either. There are things that I have put on you. And also, I think that you see, typically, I have almost never done subjects on French learning. And we talked about it because we will talk about our projects later. But I think about doing a podcast for me, to continue, because it will be missing and it will make me a little sad to stop. And I told you, but do you think I can