The story and storytelling is great. The ads are out of control. I went on a 7 minute ride and there were commercials over a minute long in the 7 minutes. That’s too much. I want to finish the story but I can’t with all the ads. At least put them at the beginning or end.

In episode 4, they talk about how “blood transfusions we’re incredibly risky procedure” is only true if they are not screened correctly (type and screen blood test) and/or administered by a non-medical traded person (Renee). I do believe this podcast is out of the US, where blood transfusions are very much safe. A registered nurse will wait with you for the first 15 minutes of the blood transfusion (when a reaction is most likely to occur). After the first 15 minutes, the nurse will monitor you closely. Minor reactions such as low-grade fever or itching are somewhat common. And Tylenol or Benadryl can be given. But for the serious reactions, these are no common at all. I hope this doesn’t discourage someone who needs a transfusion from getting one.

This was an eye opening podcast. It made me really think about US missionary efforts and how well trained and educated you need to be for this type of work. I learned a lot and appreciated that they were really trying to get to the truth.

Thorough research, and very professionally put together. I felt like this story had so many different, complicated aspects to it and you nailed the delivery in every way: keeping the focus on Uganda, honesty, and the order / organization of the way you told the story was so on-point. I learned a lot, especially in ep6.

I appreciated the emphasis this podcast had on the victims. I wanted to like this podcast and I did for most of it. I was really into it up until the last 20 or 30 mins of the last episode to be honest. I mean the narrator doesn’t have the guts to confront Renee, someone they had pretty intimate access for a pretty long time. So much so that we know they are stew together that Renee’s mom made. Yet you had no problem bringing up unsubstantiated rumors to a grieving mother, accusing her of killing her own baby?? Why would you include that on your podcast? And why would you include all that about the mother visiting the gravesite and mourning her child after? Is it tragedy porn? Whatever the reasoning it was completely unnecessary and exploitative of this woman’s tragedy. It’s infuriating that you’d spend so much time explaining the pitfalls of white saviorism and the exploitative nature of nonprofit work only to turn around and exploit the grieving mother for your podcast. Pretty shameful ending to what could have been a very evidence focused podcast.

I think this podcast brought up a general problem in missions - white saviourism, personal glory, exaggerating stories for financial gain, etc. But I think putting the spotlight on Renee Bach as some kind of monster is unfair. The producers/journalists in this podcast said many times that they could not find the facts in this case. So much of this story was based on rumor and gossip. I have no doubt that Renee was operating outside of her scope of expertise as a medical professional. However, it’s hard to know if she caused actual harm. Many of the doctors they interviewed supported her and insisted that these children were better off at her center vs the local hospital. This is not necessarily surprising to me. Looking at this from an American perspective and hearing that they didn’t take someone to the hospital or have a proper license is shocking. But if you’ve traveled anywhere else you might realize that these things are handled very differently in other countries. Also, it was very apparent that in this particular city in Uganda there was a toxic culture of competition, jealousy and who knows what else among missionaries. It actually does seem a bit like Mean Girls which is even mentioned in this podcast. Anyway, I found this interesting and it brought up a lot of good thought provoking points, but about half way through it became clear that there was no solid evidence to most of the claims being made.

No White Saviors is an incredibly biased movement based on a founder who thrives in bitterness and arrogance. Is Rene a model for anything? No! Flee from her ways! Is she a criminal? Maybe. But this podcast does not give a balanced view. Hearsay. Opinions.

The show was entertaining but that’s about it, it seemed to me like the journalist we’re really focused on pushing a particular narrative, without accounting for or acknowledging the societal differences. It was also ironic to me that some of the main ideas that the show confronts, like white saviorism and exploitation of Africans, were also, albeit unknowningly a problem with the podcast itself. I highly doubt the people interviewed during the podcast were compensated fairly, if at all

If the hosts could leave out their liberal ideology & disdain for Chritianity, this podcast would definitely be 5 stars, but just like CNN & MSNBC, they just cant help themselves. I hope next time it’ll be all facts & no propaganda.

Excellent and thorough research but wish would have pressed Renee in the same way you pressed Kakai (sp?). Probably easier to ask difficult questions through an interpreter.

Interesting listen. Negative reviews are coming from people not interested in thinking critically about colonialism and white saviorism.

NWS had a BLM protest in Uganda and the cops arrested them. Lol

Suuuuuuuucks

Least objective, informed, realistic thought process in a podcast I have encountered. Terrible.

Unfortunately a lot of the reviews here attempt to paint this podcast as biased and another symptom of how Millennials take everything to race. What these reviewers fail to accept is that our global history is what has led us to our current present. You can’t have cause without effect; you can’t have the present without the past. It is a tragedy that race informs so much of the world around us but it was deliberately set up this way. That is not opinion, that is historical fact. From Jim Crow to redlining, from colonialism to apartheid. And these realities did not end with holding hands and singing songs and their effects are still ongoing. If you break your leg in 3 places the recovery will be hard and long. Your mobility may be forever affected. Imagine if you tried to ignore your injury hoping that time alone would heal it, you would definitely end up never fully recovered. It’s the same with our ugly histories. Slavery, colonialism, genocide those are the injuries of the past that continue to bleed into our present & future, and injuries must be properly faced and dealt with to fully heal.

I was all in after the first episode. I was telling everybody I knew about this podcast and couldn’t wait to listen to more. Sadly that quickly unraveled and by the end of episode 4 I had a really bad taste in my mouth. The journalists are obviously way too involved in this story and they insert themselves way too much into the story. It is so obviously personal to them, I just couldn’t believe the bias in this podcast. I really am shocked this can pass journalistic ethical standards. Maybe because it’s a podcast the ethical standards are different, I don’t know. Too bad because it has such potential. I hadn’t heard of this story before and was fascinated to learn more but unfortunately I couldn’t trust the source.

Interesting, important topic, but low on evidence, as implied in other reviews here. I commend the production quality, but this feels more like gaslighting than anything else.

This could have been a good story. But it’s hard to take the reporters seriously. They have to try to weave in racism at every opportunity, even with things that are unrelated to the story. They are not unbiased so I find it hard to believe that they could report this story unbiased. I would love to hear an unbiased sort report on this story, instead of someone just looking for ways to weave in racism at every single tiny opportunity. It’s insulting to POC who are strong and don’t need the victim card constantly thrown in our faces.

They have resolved the legal case and I’d love an update about where everyone is and any changes in Uganda. Especially following covid.

Not true journalism...one sided propaganda piece that will perpetuate cyber bullying of the woman at the center of the story.

A large majority of media is produced in this country by Millennials and it shows. Their views are often incredibly biased, lacking a clear sight of both sides. This podcast tries to accomplish some semblance of balance but falls short. It is laden with the presenters personal biases and prejudices, which is; Christians and white people are evil. And the vocal effect of dragging out the end of words or ending every sentence so it sounds like a question is labor heavy and annoying after several episodes.

I listened to the whole podcast and don’t think I knew much more after listening to it than I did before I started. It’s clear that NWS doesn’t like Renee and that missionary work in Uganda is hard. There did seem to be a bias against white people and their assistance but there’s also need for white people’s assistance because of the malnutrition problem. Ironically, they did not want to work with Renee because she was white and some problems she had, but they were willing to take money she raised and use her facility. It’s obviously a complex, multilayered problem with no easy solutions but it doesn’t make sense to refuse help because the people that are providing it are white.

I gave this podcast a fair shake - made it through four episodes before I became too frustrated with the pretty clearly biased reporting to continue. I have just finished the “In the Dark” podcast, and the comparisons between the journalism in the two podcasts are stark. From paying witnesses for their stories, to accepting an opponent’s assertions about Renee’s actions and motivations without challenge, to shoddy and clearly biased/leading language in the narration, “The Missionary” seems to start with what they hope is an explosive conclusion and work backwards. At one point a pretty clear statement by Renée is labeled “puzzling” (I believe was the word used). At another point a doctor is shown a photo of a child and the doctor says definitively that the child does not need a blood transfusion, based solely on the photo rather than lab work or clinical findings. The narrator states that blood transfusions are the number one risk factor for death in the treatment of malnourished children (quoting from memory, apologies if I am not exact), without exploring whether that is because children who require transfusions are exceptionally ill. This is even after the podcast emphasizes that blood transfusions are a last resort treatment. In another instance the investigators lay blame on Renée for a complication that they say could have been treated in a hospital, but I am confused as to how she is solely to blame when the podcast acknowledges that the complication was already present and noted in the hospital records upon discharged. I came into this podcast having only read the sensationalized stories about this case and so expected to be given the hard, evidence-based facts to explain the uproar, but instead feel that I received a manipulative and either sensationalist or agenda-driven podcast. I don’t mean to imply that Renée did nothing wrong, or possibly even egregious, but the exaggerations, leaps of logic, questionable witnesses, and selective skepticism leaves me with an impression of very suspect journalism. If you’re looking for objective background info on this case this is not the podcast for you.

I think the concept of this podcast and the work with NWS is extremely interesting and important, but I think they picked the wrong subject. Rather than messing with Bach’s muddled story and gossip, they should have spent time investigating and telling the story of people NWS has gone up against with actual evidence. Too much gossip and anecdotal “evidence” and not enough provable facts to back up claims on either side of this story.

This was great investigative journalism! It seemed like the journalists really tried to understand everyone’s point of view. This is not a hit piece. It’s really thorough. The only episode I skipped was the Barbie Savior episode because I had already listened to another podcast that referenced it and I felt like I was up to speed. I only took away a star because about half the Ugandans featured had very pronounced accents and I couldn’t understand what they said.

Sorry, but this is actually a review of the sponsors/advertisers. The whispering one. That we have to hear over and over again. I know the trick here is supposed to be that whispering makes people listen better. But in this case, ir’s the exact opposite effect. This whispering is so annoying and so loud that I cannot fast forward fast enough! I know it’s for auto insurance but I have no idea what Insurance company it actually is. Please make it stop!!!!!

Narrator: The female narrating speaks like, what I like to call, the modern day valley girl. It’s distracting and annoying. Ex: Ugaandaaa doown, ooveer, etc. Everything is drawn out and there is a small vocal fry. When listening to a podcast, this was a deal breaker. Story: This is a very interesting story and probably more prevalent that anyone would like to think. The first 4 episodes kept me listening, but eventually, there was nothing new or exciting. Just dramatization of what we already knew was going on.

I think the hosts put in a lot of work and time creating this podcast - it’s an interesting story and part of a much bigger, deeper one. It’s too bad they got pulled into the drama instead of looking at the bigger picture. I understand the hosts are sympathetic to Kelsey Nielsen and No White Saviors. There are some great questions to be asked about all the well intentioned but poorly planned work that aid groups of all types do. Kelsey clearly has a very personal vendetta against Renee. There never seems to be any actual evidence that Renee did anything beyond operating a clinic on a recently expired license. I wish the journalists involved in this podcast would have read The New Yorker story from 2017 and realized that they were on the wrong path in pushing the NWS narrative.

I listened to this entire Podcast. I feel like it was much more an assault on Christianity and white people trying to make a difference then about incompetence. I feel like this Podcast sounds like a lot of wokeness and hate against whites currently going on. So sad, it should have been about a Country so poor they can’t feed the children they have but keep having more.

Why do I expect anything more from people who don’t understand the faith presented in the Bible? Or the calling of a missionary? I do believe that Renes initial thoughts and leading to go were juvenile and lack of oversight. This is all out of the crazy of the racial tensions in the US. No White Saviors are creating for themselves a new level of oppression, negating the help that 3rd world countries so desperately need. These podcast journalist should not report on things when they already have a worldview against a certain side. Sad.

The series just doesn’t flow very well and the ultimate impact is underwhelming, though I don’t feel the content should warrant such a feeling. I wanted to like this podcast, but I’ve just heard similar ones done so much better. It’s just all over the place.

Flesh eating bacteria to mean Renee was eating her flesh? Maybe? Lost in translation? Jesus....

I was interested to see where this podcast was going as I have not heard of this story. In the beginning, a question was posed why God would lead this girl down this particular path. I was hoping throughout listening to the story that the podcaster would realize that God did not lead her down this path, that was entirely a selfish act. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make it five minutes into the story. As a journalist, unbiased reporting is particularly welcomed by your readers/listeners. It is important to remain unbiased or bipartisan as you’re telling a story. Especially these days as our country has been placed in a media hellhole. Over the years, I have voted for presidents who have won and presidents who have lost, however when the campaign is over, it is over. In order to remain a collective United States of America, we place our feelings about a person aside and we unite within our country.This is something that we have been unable to do over the course of the last four years.As I am being inundated by countless outlets reminding me that orange man bad, senile man good, and the media constantly is screaming at me that a pandemic is hovering after 10 pm and before 6 am,sitting at a restaurant is good, standing at a restaurant is bad, wearing a mask in March was ridiculous but in June it was brilliant, etc. I have tended to only listen to podcast and get my news from other resources. Thank you for reminding me that we are caught between ignorant arrogance and authority we can trust. Somehow, your journalistic license has to have been violated by bringing nonsense into a story that should have been extremely entertaining. I would suggest that you take this opportunity to fact check the media and our politicians as to the actual timeline of when things were said and done. Both sides of the aisle have made mistakes during this “pandemic“ and yes, 200,000 plus people have horrifically past away from a terrible virus, we should stop and rejoice that the estimated 2 million dead was in fact not realized. Podcasts are ways that normal people escape from the going ons of today. Thank you for bringing it all back full circle and showcasing your ignorance for free thinking and rationalize thought.

I was so interested in the premise and there was so much possibility in the story. After the first episode I recommended it to friends. But somewhere along the line it just fizzled out. They didn’t come to any great conclusions or seem to know where they were going after getting mired in this one woman’s drama. I wish instead they had delved into other stories that I’m sure exist. I hope someone picks up this topic in another podcast because it deserves exposure.

Great reporting, and a multi-faceted look into how the white savior complex is enabled. I thought the female narrator’s voice was not appropriate for covering a subject like this...this subject requires a bit more gravity. Instead it sounded like a valley girl reading a gossip column.

Well researched and well presented

I appreciate the emphasis on the complicated nature of white savior politics. I lived in Latin America as a kid due to my dads work and I’ve heard him try to explain to people how life can be different in different places. I think a part of white privilege is the assumption that whiteness is connected to a higher or better standard of living and that by our very nature we are somehow gifted and best. Which demeans anyone else and isn’t based in fact. But is wild to hear in the way some people talk about places they don’t know and have never been. I also appreciate the religious aspect of this because that feels like such a power over people in some cases that can empower that ignorance and persistence despite what might be warning signs to others. Hearing from the people living locally, left with the stories and changed lives, is invaluable in understanding what other realities exist and hopefully can spread awareness that difference isn’t “lesser,” and that a conscious and careful approach to what some consider charity, or humanitarian work, or gods work, is always appropriate and worth the consideration. I’d look forward to some further conversation about these issues from you folks in the future! I’m sure there are plenty of examples of this kind out there through history, and all of us willing listeners have plenty of room for growth.

Something feels off, like the narrators insert themselves too much. I would prefer if this podcast just shared the facts and feelings of the real people involved, mostly through Ugandan voices, because I think the story is interesting and important enough to stand on its own. Ariel Levy’s New Yorker piece is a good companion read.

If you are a bleeding heart white liberal who is ashamed of your “white privilege” and wants to relieve your masochistic tendencies for the day, this is the podcast for you. Being a white person is BAD and this is just another reason!! White, bad, white, white, bad, white, white, bad, bad, bad......

Anyone who comes to this podcast NOT needing to internally stay faithful to white Christian missionary ideals they were raised with finds it smart, well researched, thoughtful & very worthy listening. Deserving of each star in their 5 star reviews. HOWEVER, it is VERY noticeable that every 1 or 2 star review says something along the lines of, ...an attack on Christianity... but really? It isn’t. These people have just been made to feel icky and uncomfortable when they recognize their own (flawed) beliefs being reported upon, and respond with ONE star and a wishy-washy to bad review. That’s unfair. Apple should have a way to filter out bad reviews when they happen because the listener is having an internal crisis because of the podcast— not because the podcast is actually bad.

A thoughtful examination of one woman’s white savior complex and the disastrous impact it had on other people. The female narrator was fine- I don’t know what people are complaining about. Also it’s goofy to suggest it’s one sided, considering how often they express an inability to nail down black and white facts, and are instead left with a lot of conflicting testimonials. The Podcast also ends by very clearly stating that the truth was hard to pin down.

Taking a closer look at what white missionaries are doing in developing countries is really important. Just wanting to help isn’t enough. You need to actually have skills that are valuable. This podcast focuses on one example of someone who did whatever she wanted simply because people let her. The results were tragic. But I’m glad the journalist here got both sides of the story, it adds a layer of depth to the listeners understanding of what really might have happened (of course, no one can ever really know besides the people who were there).

The Missionary presents an important topic, but the podcast feels incomplete. The story of Renee Bach reminds me of the story of Elisabeth Holmes of Theranos infamy—we have elevated youth to ridiculous proportions. Young people are the future, but they don’t know anything! They need training and apprenticeship before they jump into leadership positions. What Bach did is not limited to the church. The podcast seems to suggest that this is exclusively a Christian problem, but it is culture-wide. There is an increase in narcissism among young people, Christians and others. Also, agree with the other posts that find the female narrator insufferable. Her constant upspeak was like nails on a chalkboard. Otherwise, it was a good podcast.

The podcast wasn’t terrible itself. But all t he support from ‘No White Saviors’ made it undesirable. NWS have become exactly what they espouse to dislike, being a white savior. The podcast seems quite one sided, as if they are trying to discredit Bach, which she herself did that without help. If you listen, it’s basically a beat down of Christianity. But I still listened.

This is a hugely important story. I’m another “recovering white savior” who got swept up in the “missionary lifestyle” in my late teens/early twenties. Much of the language in this podcast is eerily familiar - especially that of being “called” and the narrative that those in poverty “need saving”. Thank you for this story and for seeking out Ugandan voices. This should be required listening for every evangelical in America

Great journalism. Very compelling.

I found the story to be interesting however the female narration is so distracting and cringy I gave up at episode 6. I couldn’t stand to listen to her anymore.

I had to keep refreshing my feed on release day. This was so good! Keep these excellent investigative reports coming!!

I’d never heard this story before and was excited to learn about it, but I expected a true journalistic podcast like many others I’ve heard. Instead, this podcast is biased and the narration is cringeworthy at times. To be clear, Renee is definitely wrong in many ways, but I would’ve liked to hear this podcast present facts rather than judgements. Almost all of the story is “he said / she said”, but every time the narrators assume one side is telling the truth and the other must be lying. They also don’t allow you to draw any of your own conclusions or judgements, instead telling you why you must feel a certain way. The way NWS has been promoting this podcast, I can’t help but wonder what influence they had in this clear bias. Also, the female narrator Halima Gikandi is insufferable to listen to (and this is coming from another woman)- her speech and cadence is so unnatural, I found it hard to even pay attention and almost had to stop listening altogether.

I had been familiar with this story from the last few years, and so it took me a bit to actually start this podcast. But once I started was not disappointed. Very compelling reporting.