³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

At the World Service we are changing the science programmes. Budget restraints mean that we have to cut them in duration and end the main documentary strand, but at the same time keeping the daily slots really prominent in our output.

Ìý

We are also changing the way we make them so they have space to help shape the day's news agenda. Our audience is mostly young - keen to understand the world and question why we live the way we do. The range of science we offer from pure research to practical application, we hope works for all our audiences around the world. From today, Digital Planet is renamed Click - matching . They remain separate programmes, separate presenters and in many ways their own individual take on technology.

So why bother? Well I guess we are trying to make a statement about the way we work and what we offer across radio and television and that it's the "big picture" we offer. The television programme is a great way to see just what technology does, Click on the radio remains a great place to talk about the implications of this technology.

As :

"The focus of the new show will be the same - reporting the human side of technology from around the world, just as we always have."

It doesn't mean radio can't do what TV does, or TV can't do what radio does, but letting our audience know that both are doing it in a complimentary way seems like a good thing.

You already would have seen or heard the different presenters appearing on the radio and TV programmes and that will continue. It's already easier to access audio and video on the main Click site.

At the heart of the idea is recognising, especially around technology and the web, that there are real chances for a multi-media experience building on what TV and radio do best. So the radio programme increasingly will be broadcast/recorded live with web chat integrated with the programme as it unfolds.

There's already been some discussion and debate about the name change online and that will continue I'm sure. Please give it time to settle in and let me know what you think.

Steve Titherington is senior commissioning editor for ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Global News

It might seem tempting to go along with the name change from Burma to Myanmar instigated by the generals back in 1989, given the colonial associations with "Burma" - however the name change has been resisted by many who do not accept the legitimacy of the of current regime.

Rangoon also became Yangon; we have stayed with Rangoon. There were also other name changes within Burma which were themselves opposed by people within Burma.

There's an interesting on this.

Of course there have been many other name changes especially within Asia where the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and the international community have gone with the decision made by a particular country… eg Mumbai but not (yet) Kolkata. But in India there has been debate and discussion which the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ has reported and many times been part of. There has been no similar dialogue within Burma.

Not all name changes have stuck. Cambodia became Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge in 1975. It is now of course back to being Cambodia. I am told the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ stayed with Cambodia throughout.

The fact that many news organisations and official bodies - although by no means all - have started using "Myanmar" does mean that we need to also acknowledge that usage in many of our stories and links. So you might hear Burma and Myanmar in a story or cue but never Myanmar alone.

To change the name now would itself be seen as making a statement about the legitimacy of one side. We have not supported one side by leaving the name as "Burma", but have simply let the status quo remain.

I think the key point in the discussions here at the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ World Service is that we change a name when it is a settled and lasting change - Burkina Faso for instance (formerly called the Republic of Upper Volta). And only in those circumstances. Even after all this time Burma is not a settled issue - is it?