³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

You could increase output of useful and interesting science programmes by cutting down on the tedious religious programming.

You get a thumbs up from me, it makes sense. I've been following Click for well over a year now, and currently playing catch up with the Digital Planet podcasts, in my opinion there is very little difference between the two, except the name. The reason why i put off listening to Digital Planet was because i thought it would cover the same news as Click. This isn't the case like you say, Click provides me with what's the latest in technology and how it works, etc. and Digital Planet provides me with good insight, and decent debate. Thus, knowing this i now wouldn't mind if Click radio covered the same topics in the same week as Click TV, because it would cater for both my needs. Though, i wouldn't want this to happen every week, it will still be good to vary topics.

As for Anna's comment 'tedious religious programming', the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ caters for all. I'm not religous, but the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ has not right to be biased, people of all backgrounds and beliefs pay the licence fee.

The way the World Service has been dismantled is a very sad story indeed. Not that it came unexpected, given the steadily growing amount of rousing leader-spam and all the emphasis on World Have Your Say (always sounding like a football match).
Over the years I learned a lot from ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ World Service Science programs. Thank you for that. This 'merger' seems to hide a tragic development.

Keep up the good job, but watch out for the subtle spelling pitfall: ''both [TV and radio] are doing it in a complimentary way'' should probably read ''complementary'', as the two presumably complement each other, rather than flatter each other or the audience (very kind of you anyway!)

The integration of the two shows makes sense in the long term, providing they keep their distinct format differences so they complement rather than compete. Click on TV is best as showing and explaining technology, click on the radio is better at analysing trends and examining what could happen next. The weakest part of everything at the moment is the website. This needs a serious rewrite - and fast. Unless you've kept old links, we're losing site of valuable stuff very quickly. So you have great content, but lousy curation!

On Click you say: "It's already easier to access audio and video on the main Click site"."

Audio I would say is as easily accessible now as it was before (once you've worked out that 'Previous episodes' refers to the radio programme). Video though is a different matter, at for those outside the UK. There is an archive of programmes to watch again on iPlayer but that's only available if you're in the UK. There used to be a video archive of past programmes on the website which we could all watch it who where elsewhere in the world. Unfortunately it has now been removed. Why? And can it be brought back?

So what *length* is the current TV episode now then?

All I can find is an 12 minute heavily cut-down snapshot programme online??
(it's now Thursday 31 March 2011, and have not seen any *full* 24 minute version appear online since the original Sat 26 March 2011 broadcast date).

Info please... ?

The name change sounds like another case of change for changes sake. How does changing the name but not the content save money? Please do not mess with Digital Planet, it did not complement Click before, neither did it need to. Click TV is more light hearted, DP more serious. If you want to save money broadcast DP (Radio Click) on Radio 4 as well as on the World Service and make Radio 4 pay for it.

Many of the World Service science radio programmes (including DP) are of better quality than similar ones on Radio 4. I see no reason why they are not broadcast on both Radio 4 and World Service with the cost shared. I live in the UK and listen to the podcasts, we in Britain are missing out by not knowing that they exist as few of us in the UK listen to the World Service.

Having two programmes called "Click" (one radio, one TV) can only cause confusion as it makes it harder to identify each one and having a third Radio 4 programme called "Click On" can not help either.

why as click not shown on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ on. its a good program most have weaver hard off

All very bewildering. TV and radio programme of the same name but different (though overlapping) content, plus another bizarrely named after just about the most frequently used pair of words on the web - click on - so if you google it you hit oodles of sites. Please don't do anything logical like call the TV programme Click and merge the two radio programmes. Mind you this is from the corporation that ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ 1,2,3, and 4, and Radio 1,2, 3 and 4, but then starts to get creative. Radio 5, ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳6 (Radio), ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳7 (Radio) renamed ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳4X, or is it Radio 4X

There seems to be a serious think tank about the merge of Click and Digital Plant. The results would show ,how much execution went into the thinking.

Seem to make sense to me. I always thought it was odd having two different brands covering the same content.

I hope all this cost cutting is not going to totally destroy what is a really brilliant offering from the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳. I agree with BetterBug (#3) that it was quite a loss to the public when the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ World Service cuts were rolled out in January this year.

At least, in this particular instance, I think it makes good sense - the content was largely overlapping and spending to maintain two separate brands is really a waste of money.

Steve, in relation to your comment about usefulness for audiences around the world, I've done a fair amount of development work in the education sector in Uganda and other African countries and a lot of the research and programming has proved to be invaluable in engaging young learners. I don't think anybody is going to care much about branding changes, long as the same quality of content will still be available.

Anna ()

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In the Click article about Graphene, Alex Hudson quoted Dr. Lin as saying "The kind of strengths that people quote may not even apply to microscopic samples,". Should this have been "...macroscopic..."? AFAIK, the measurements to date have been on microscopic (or at least very small) samples, so the question remaining is whether these figures will be true of pieces large enough to be useful.

As long as the boring Spencer doesn't introduce the programme I really don't mind. When will someone tell the poor guy that he is just not funny. Just cut out the cr*p and get on with the programme please!