This was the starting point for a new initiative at BBC World Service, BBC World News and the BBC News website: Extreme World. It's not a season of programmes, but a themed approach to some editorial content, using the idea of extremes as a way of seeing the world and understanding our place in it. What is life like in the hottest place on earth and, conversely, the coldest? What about issues such as crime and corruption?

The more we explored issues in this way, the more interesting it became - and sometimes surprising. When researching death and dying, for example, some of our perceptions were given interesting new contexts. Dying in a developed country, for example, might give you access to better medical care, but hospitals, hospices and care homes can leave people remote from their loved ones and sometimes completely alone. Poorer countries may have a lack of medical facilities, but the role of the community and family in a remote village in sub-Saharan Africa make a solitary death far less likely.

A theme allows us to play to the different strengths of radio, television and online and to ensure they complement each other. A listener might hear a piece of on-the-scene reporting on the World Service followed by an invitation to go online and explore the data around the story - particularly how their own country, which may well not be at the extremes, fits into the global picture.

The label is a vital part of the process. We hope that regular users of our services pick up the baggage of the season over time and make links they would otherwise have been invisible. We hope that it will offer a fresh way of looking at subjects which might otherwise get lost in the blizzard of 21st-Century media.

Extreme World promises to be an exciting and intriguing collection of content that will continue to take shape over the coming months, providing our reporters with fresh angles and perspectives and offering audiences a range and depth of compelling reports on TV, on radio and online.

Craig Oliver is the controller of English at BBC Global News.

However, some general elections go beyond the extraordinary and become truly historic.

I wasn't quite 10, but I'll never forget when Margaret Thatcher stood on the doorstep of Number 10 and said "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony." Similarly, Tony Blair saying "A new dawn has broken, has it not?" was clearly going to be a historical moment.

Whatever the result, this year's election will bring a sea change. Will David Cameron become the first Conservative prime minister for 13 years? Will Nick Clegg break the mould of UK politics? Or will Gordon Brown defy the polls and secure an unprecedented fourth consecutive Labour victory?

The opening titles of our Election 2010 programme, we hope, recognise this sense of history. The programme begins at 2155 BST on 6 May on BBC One, the BBC News Channel, BBC HD and of course online and you can see a preview of the titles below.

The idea came from looking and listening back over the many election nights the BBC has covered. As election editor, I have often made a date with BBC Parliament - which has shown many past elections in the past year - and found myself drawn into the intrigue and excitement of a particular night.

I realised that if you ever want to get a sense of the country at a specific time, you could do a lot worse than watch the BBC election results programme. February 1974 is a particular favourite - not just because it helped with my understanding of the last time we had a hung Parliament, but also because it reveals the UK as such a different country.

A full ashtray can be seen on the desk at the beginning of the night; some of the men have hairstyles that could have been in a science-fiction film; the presentation team has no women and for any woman standing for Parliament, the graphics helpfully add a "Mrs" or "Miss" in brackets after her surname.

The only black face to be seen on the programme is a man in Trafalgar Square being interviewed by Desmond Wilcox, who seems to assume he mustn't be used to democracy - the interviewee politely points out that he has lived in the country for some time.

1979 is equally interesting. The country seems a colder, greyer place than 1974 - and many of the reporters speak as though they have a plum in their mouth. I wonder what the BBC election editor in 2046 will make of the country presented in Election 2010.

I am sure they will see a fantastic team, headed by David Dimbleby presenting his eighth general election. Nick Robinson will give us the sharpest analysis; Emily Maitlis and Jeremy Vine will bring clarity with exceptional graphics and Fiona Bruce will keep us up to date with regular news bulletins.

We'll be on air just before the polls close at 2200 BST, when we'll release the results of our exit poll. Most importantly, we'll bring you all the results as they happen - with our reporters at many more seats across the UK than any other broadcaster.

Our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have their own programmes - with the BBC UK programme on BBC Two in those areas. Radio 4 and 5 live have been
working closely with us, sharing expertise and resources, and they will have their own results services. We've also worked extremely closely with our colleagues online, so watching us with your laptop or mobile open on the Live Event page and explainers should be a great experience.

The last three elections were extremely important - but during each campaign, the polls pointed to only one outcome. As I write this, no-one is certain what will happen this time. Pollsters and political analysts are as bemused as they are excited, saying they've never seen anything like this in their lifetimes.

6 and 7 May 2010 look to be days that historians will write about for generations. I hope you take the opportunity to grab the best front-row seat with the BBC as history is made.

Craig Oliver is deputy head, BBC newsroom.

Naturally when something like that happens all the traditional techniques of gathering the news swing into action, including - but not limited to - sending people to the affected area.

Our Rome correspondent Duncan Kennedy arrived on the scene early, and covered the big picture in L'Aquila - but we also wanted to ensure teams travelling from outside Italy could help give the full picture on such an important story.

The logistics of travel to Italy during Holy Week and the fact that many of the roads were closed meant that Europe correspondent Clive Myrie and his team were arriving in the late afternoon.

The Six and Ten O'Clock News production team wanted to ensure we could find key angles on the story as quickly as possible.

They chased leads in a variety of ways - perhaps the most interesting was the use of Twitter and Facebook to identify the worst-hit areas.

One woman on Twitter wrote that a village called Onna had been devastated, with many victims. We contacted people in the area using various social networking sites and more traditional techniques. They helped us confirm the story - and directed us to its centre.

Clive had a limited amount of time on the ground - but it is unlikely he would have been able to do the strong work he did across the BBC without us using every tool at our disposal to bring this story of human tragedy to the public.

Craig Oliver is editor of BBC News At Six and BBC News At Ten.

I can't pretend I wasn't concerned. An audience analyst sent me a note a week before the big day saying the programmes would split the available news audience - meaning the BBC would lose one-and-a-half million viewers.

There was an added frisson for me - I had worked at ITN for much of my career, and had been a proud member of the ITV News at Ten team before it was axed. I wrote in this blog at the time saying that we may lose out initially, but that I was confident a year later that we would still be the market leader.

So was I right?

On 15 January last year I waited nervously for the overnight viewing figures to drop into my inbox. I was surprised to see that despite all the hoopla surrounding the return of Sir Trevor, the BBC had the most viewing figures, winning by more than a million viewers.

Over the year we have never been overtaken. In fact I am pleased to say that BBC News at Ten has actually slightly increased its audience in the past year to 4.9 million (following an increase of 250,000 the previous year). ITV has averaged around 2.3 million.

I'm also glad to say that our audience is not purely driven by "inheritance" (that is, people who have been watching the programme before the news who don't change channel) - we often have up to two million people joining BBC One at 10 O'Clock.

In the past year the BBC News at Six has increased its audience by 200,000. What's encouraging is that in a world of ever-increasing channels and fracturing audiences, television news programmes are fighting fit, and can attract new viewers.

ITV News at Ten has been a very sharp programme which continues to keep us on our toes. The competition is a great thing, and long may it continue.

Craig Oliver is editor of BBC News At Six and BBC News At Ten.

The incident happened near the BBC's bureau and our correspondent immediately ran to the scene. He caught on camera the man being shot dead.

There have been a number of complaints from viewers about us showing on television the moment of death. I fully understand the concerns, but this is why I took the decision to show it.

After some discussion with colleagues I decided that on the Six O'Clock News we should freeze the images just before the man was shot - letting only the sound of the incident run on. I took the view that the images were too disturbing to show to an early evening audience because, pre-watershed, children would be watching.

I took a different view at Ten - deciding to run the pictures in full with a clear warning that the audience was about to see images of a man being shot dead. This was not an easy decision - we never want to shock for the sake of it, or to sensationalise the news.

However, equally we don't want to sanitise the news for what is a mature and thoughtful audience. It's also important to think about what the audience actually saw - the shot was not close-up, the action was slightly obscured because it was happening behind the bulldozer's windscreen, the men's faces were not visible, and no blood was seen.

The scene was disturbing, and it was a fine call, but I believe it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence.

The story also raised another difficult question: would it have gained quite so much coverage if it had not been caught on camera?

The answer is probably not - but we should not necessarily ignore the opportunity to show people what goes on when we are provided with it. We should however remind people that this is not the only violence, and set it in the context of other deaths - both Palestinian and Israeli - which we did last night.

With my hat on as editor of BBC Election programmes I can point to a very real example this Thursday night/Friday morning: the BBC Election Night programme.

It's become increasingly clear that the web has something extra to offer on election night. An elaborate network of opinion formers, activists and analysts collide online producing fact, rumour, and mood not found anywhere else. While guarded politicians offer the official line on radio and TV ("let's just wait and see" or "what you say is a disaster is really a triumph") the web provides the unvarnished truth about what the parties are really thinking.

That's why we're harnessing these strengths as never before on Election Night. David Dimbleby and Nick Robinson will be in the studio with some of Britain's top politicians bringing authority and analysis to proceedings as the BBC has always done; but a new addition is Emily Maitlis who'll be sifting the chatter online with the help of some of the UK's most committed political bloggers; Iain Dale, Luke Akehurst and Alix Mortimer.

They'll be using their contacts to provide us with immediate reaction from the parties to the night's results. Our website colleagues will be providing a special webpage with the best of each of their blogs - all hosted by Ms Maitlis at "Emily's Election".

That's alongside the normal comprehensive online offering which includes a map of all the results; the chance to find out what happens where you've voted; and at-a-glance look at how the night develops.

This year's local elections promise to be the most politically significant for years. They'll also see a step change in how we use TV and online to cover the story. So put on a pot of strong coffee, turn on, log on, and join in.

BBC Election coverage:
•BBC One, 2335 BST
•BBC Radio 4 Midnight to 0300 BST with Jim Naughtie and Carolyn Quinn
•Radio 5 Live 2200 to 0500 BST with Richard Bacon and Dotun Adebayo
•and BBC London 94.9 on Friday from 1500 to 2200 BST
•On the web at bbc.co.uk/elections

Evan Davis is leaving his post as economics editor - and going on a year-long attachment to Radio 4 as a presenter of the Today programme. It's a great move for him - but we're feeling more than a little sad on the Ten O'Clock News.

I could try to sum up why we'll miss him - but someone has already done it perfectly. Ipsos Mori were looking for someone who personifies how they want to be seen - they hit on Evan and this is how they described him:

"Fun, quirky, lively, outspoken but apolitical, approachable, explains the complex simply (eg Evanomics); uses technology (his blogging); commonly cited and sought out for opinion. Seems passionate and interested in what he’s doing. Not just a corporate clone or hack."

They could also have written "self-deprecating". When I first joined BBC News a couple of years ago, Evan dropped by to give me an idea of what I could expect from him and his presenting style - he was laughing hard when he said The Sun's Garry Bushell had seen one of his early TV appearances and described him as "a cross between Gollum and a needy vicar".

So how did he go from being bullied by TV critics to being one of the most respected people in journalism? For me it's because Evan took the road less travelled. Some journalists can be showy and hyperbolic - in trying to get people interested in what they have to say, they can oversell their stories. Evan has always been utterly clear that economics is rarely an area of blacks and whites, but varying shades of grey - a world where things tend to happen in increments over a long cycle, not easily matching the hourly demands of modern broadcast news.

I once told him a literary anecdote about Samuel Taylor Coleridge not being impressed by William Wordsworth's poem Daffodils - Coleridge's point was that if you are going to get that excited about some daffodils, what are you going to say when it really matters? Evan agreed that he would have been very much on Coleridge's side. It's that unwillingness to shout loud about everything that made Evan saying a fundamental shift was happening in the global economy last autumn pack a real punch.

Over the last few months Evan has been leading the way in pointing out that the world's economy is slowing down, that slowdown will hurt - but how much will depend on the skill of the world's central banks. As other journalists have struggled to see their way through the complexities of the economy Evan has been clear and right time after time.

Evan has been unique; he's also become something of a star - but most of all he's been a brilliant journalist.

He's followed by Stephanie Flanders - another first class journalist with a style of her own, I'm sure she will be equally successful.

Update, Thursday 20 March: And here's Evan's last piece from the Ten O'Clock News.

I blogged about the aims of the summary at the time of launch in December - one of the key ones was to reach audiences who don't watch any BBC TV News output during the week.

I thought I'd share with you some of the audience figures we've had back from the first two weeks of the summary. 24.4 million people (or around 43% of the population) watched the summary in that fortnight.

As we thought it's not the sort of bulletin (like the Six or Ten O'Clock News) that viewers would make a special point of watching - it's something they'd catch just before or after EastEnders. Indeed 65% of the audience only watched one summary in a week.

For 1.7 million viewers the 8pm summary was the only BBC TV News they saw in that week with nearly 600,000 in the 16-34 year old bracket (again an audience we know is watching less and less TV news).

We always wanted to make sure that traditional BBC One viewers didn't switch off because of the summary and the figures seem to show that isn't happening.

From our own internal research, viewers like the mix of national and regional news - something our competitors like Five don't do with their updates. They thought the summary was “to the point” and “informative” and it appealed most to younger and more working class audiences.

It's also given us a chance to update BBC One viewers with stories that break between the end of the Six O'Clock News and the Ten O'Clock News - for example the death of Jeremy Beadle last week.

The reason why it was commissioned is simple: audience research revealed that while BBC News remains extremely popular, it could do more to attract younger audiences and what the Americans call "blue collar workers". We discovered many people in these groups found traditional news programmes didn't speak to them and would prefer a different approach.

Before it's even been broadcast, the summary has already attracted a substantial number of column inches - even making the front page of Saturday's Daily Telegraph (though I'm not naïve enough to think this was more about the fine points of BBC editorial policy, than the large image of Kate Silverton).

Many of the articles have claimed this is an example of the BBC "dumbing down" - I believe this is wrong for a number of reasons:

1) The summary is an extra offering from BBC News. It won't replace anything - the Six and Ten O'Clock News, News 24 and Newsnight will still continue to offer a broad range of stories, analysis and debate.

2) It won't ignore the key stories of the day, but will tell them in an accessible way.

3) Encouraging as many people as possible to be interested in the news is surely a good thing, and one of the primary reasons why the BBC exists.

Many people rightly have very strong feelings about how BBC News is presented - I hope they will understand that different groups have different needs and tastes, and the BBC should aim to inform as many of them as it can.

Sir Trevor is back.

ITV yesterday confirmed the story that was leaked to the MediaGuardian last week - it's reviving "News at Ten", with Sir Trevor McDonald back in the slot he was first told to vacate in 1999.

I stood in the newsroom at ITN when the programme was axed. There were tears from many, angry claims that it was an act of cultural vandalism from others. What hurt was the sense that a programme that had been daring, challenging and innovative for decades appeared to be being cast aside, with little respect.

Years on it's come to be seen as one of the great TV scheduling blunders. The then ITV director of programmes, David Liddiment argued that "News at Ten" was a fixed point in the schedule that was boxing him in - if only he could shift it, he'd open the way for a brave new world where ITV could run films, longer form dramas and experiment with new programmes. He believed viewers would flock to the channel. He was wrong - as Michael Grade has admitted, ITV has never got it right at 22OO since then. Moreover, it allowed BBC News to move into the slot, and have a clearer, simpler schedule earlier in the evening that has been seen as a big success.

Three years after that announcement I stood in the ITV newsroom once again to hear ITN's chief executive, Stewart Purvis say, "A few years ago I stood here to tell you News at Ten was being axed...today I'm here to tell you it's coming back!"

I joined in the cheers at that time - but as every good journalist should know, you should always check the small print. The decision was a fudge between the regulator and ITV. The programme needed only be on at 10pm an average of three times a week. The rest of the time it was shifted round the schedules, and it was quickly dubbed "News at When".

Not so long after, I stood in the ITV newsroom to hear that it had been agreed to move the programme to 2230, five nights a week.

I wasn't in the ITV newsroom this time to hear that News at Ten is coming back - but I imagine there was another cheer. I read it on my BBC Blackberry - I moved to become editor of the Ten O'Clock News 18 months ago.

Given all the comings and goings, it's strange to think I will be in direct competition with a programme I once worked for - and that competition will be fierce. Having worked there, I know ITV News will throw everything at trying to make sure they are seen as top dog in the slot - both journalistically and in the ratings.

The sheer fact that you are reading this blog online may make you one of the people who believe this is an analogue fight in a digital world. That's an understandable position - but I believe it is wrong. Rumours of the death of the terrestrial TV news programme have been wildly exaggerated.

In the last year the BBC's Ten O'Clock News has increased its audience by nearly 300,000. Its reach, the number of people who watch it at least once a week, is up by a million, to over 17 million people. It has the youngest profile of any BBC TV News programme. I'm quoting those statistics because I believe they prove there is still a big appetite for structured news programmes - and the fact that Sir Trevor's return made front page news proves others do too. More to the point, programmes with a deadline, give journalists the thinking time and the opportunity to gather "added value" material that can be sliced and diced for other formats.

So the big question - who will win the Battle of the Tens? One thing's for sure, the early ratings will mean little. In the "News at When" era, the first ITV programme received well over 8 million viewers - that audience soon died back after the initial surge in publicity. Sir Trevor is also a literary man, he will know Thomas Wolfe's assertion that, "You can't go home again." For the BBC it will mean its dominance in the slot is constantly under attack, and at a time when big changes are afoot here at Television Centre (including a move towards what will arguably be the most advanced multimedia newsroom in the world).

I'm under no illusion, ITV is a formidable adversary, but I believe in a year's time the BBC will STILL be the market leader for news at ten.

A few months ago a Channel Four documentary designed to debunk the "global warming industry" sparked controversy for having significant factual errors.

On Wednesday night's Ten O'Clock News we led the programme with a story about a High Court judge pointing out nine "errors" in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - a documentary which unashamedly argues that the world faces catastrophe if we do not address the issue. The fact that Al Gore was the hot tip to win the Nobel Peace Prize added to the topicality of the story.

Today he won the prize, and - unsurprisingly - it's a controversial choice, not least because the question being asked is: what has climate change got to do with promoting world peace?

The key point is that we live in a world where some documentaries are created to argue a very specific case - the producers marshal the facts to ensure their view is seen in the best light, emphasising certain points, while ignoring or underplaying “inconvenient truths”. This is a dangerous game - if you appear to be on shaky ground, your opponents will ask 'If you got that wrong, surely your entire case is wrong?' The truth is usually far more difficult, and more interesting.

Some may find it hard to believe - and I am already anticipating the response to this blog - BBC News will always try to give a full, impartial picture on climate change. That's why we have done pieces pointing out why the majority of scientists believe it is happening, why some believe it is happening but it may not be as catastrophic as Al Gore makes out, and others pointing to the flaws in Gore's case. It is a story - and a debate - that will run and run. And rightly so.

• "When the Labour Party had their conference the BBC chose to spend half of each news programme reporting on it, but tonight, the BBC didn't even mention the Conservative Party Conference, and instead focused on Gordon Brown's visit to Iraq."

• "I pay my Licence Fee to have genuine independent news but to not put the Tory Conference on at all is a disgrace."

• "I think you have been caught up in Gordon Brown's spin."

What's interesting is that we didn't receive any complaints from the Conservative Party - and trust me, they would have been straight on the phone if they believed that we had underplayed their conference yesterday. In fact concerns were raised by Gordon Brown's staff in regular calls - they were concerned that what they believed was a legitimate announcement was being made to look like spin.

Editorial choices can be hard, and it's difficult to please everyone, but I believe the Ten O'Clock News did cover the key story from the Conservative Party conference yesterday - with a chunky package and "live" from our political editor in Blackpool. The piece included stinging criticism from big-hitting Tories of the prime minister's decision to make an announcement on British troops in Iraq right in the middle of the conference, and despite the fact he'd said he'd tell Parliament first. Liam Fox, Sir John Major and David Cameron all focused on the issue. They wanted to get across their point that Gordon Brown is playing politics with our troops. Again, I underline, no one from the Conservative Party complained.

The previous night we presented the Ten O'Clock News from Blackpool. Huw Edwards presented pieces on the new inheritance tax policy, an analysis of whether it would work, and the views of delegates. Half the programme was spent on the Conservatives.

The reality is, we have done just as much on the Conservative conference as we did on Labour and more than we did on the Lib Dems.

For me, the key point about last night's story is: on occasion political parties will be more keen to be seen reacting to an event than to be articulating their own policies. When they want to do that at conference time, it is our duty to report that message to the public in a fair and balanced way. I believe we achieved that last night.

It was produced by ITV News' Deborah Turness and the BBC's Sam Taylor and used dry ice, countdown clocks, spotlights and partial stories to create a pressurised atmosphere for the panellists. The scenario was set so that there was a danger of being reckless, but also that we could be overly cautious, not reporting parts of a story that should be told.

The scenario began with a shakily sourced report that a "major incident" was taking place in Wilmslow - there was a large police presence and it was suggested that the local chief constable wanted a news blackout.

After some discussion we were asked if we would report the story - there was a ten second countdown, after which I held up my sign saying "no" - I would want to find out a lot more information, not least about why the authorities wanted a blackout - there could be a very good reason why the right of the public to know could be substantially outweighed by the need to protect people (though I would be making preparations to report the story should I need to).

Others on the panel were prepared to report this information. This obviously complicates things - if information is in the public domain, is it better for the BBC to wait and find out more, or to break a blackout that has been substantially weakened?

In my view I was still not ready to go ahead with the report. Don't get me wrong - I passionately believe that my duty is to report the news unless there is an extremely good reason why not - but it would be irresponsible not to find out why the authorities wanted to stop this story being told.

The situation changed when the police revealed some more information. A statement was released saying that a serving British soldier on leave from Iraq had been kidnapped by a radical, home-grown Islamic group - they asked that we keep his identity secret, but gave no reason why. For me this made the situation more straightforward - we would effectively be in rolling news mode on News 24 covering what would have been one of the major news stories of the year, though we would have respected the request not to identify the soldier.

Things did not stay straightforward for long. A video was delivered to us from the kidnappers - it showed a soldier with a noose round his neck in an orange jumpsuit, surrounded by two balaclava-wearing men pointing guns at him. He said that the men holding him would kill him if the tape was not broadcast within an hour.

The authorities insisted that we should not show the tape because the soldier being held was a senior member of the SAS, who worked on undercover operations in Iraq. There was more discussion and after a ten second countdown we had to decide whether to run the tape or not. This time I held up the "Yes" sign. It seemed absurd to me that the authorities had attempted to impose a blanket ban on running the tape - if the man was killed the fact that his identity needed to be kept a secret for operations would be irrelevant… but here's the really key point: editorial decisions are not always yes or no - they are often compromises. What the kidnappers wanted broadcast was what was being said, not the identity of their captive. I would have run the tape, blurring the soldier's face.

In my view the life of the soldier was protected by the decision, and it was the authorities that were being irresponsible.

You could argue that it would be wrong to broadcast terrorist propaganda, but the truth is people are highly unlikely to be radicalised by exposure to this kind of thing, and if they are, there is plenty of it on the internet.

You could also argue that giving people the oxygen of publicity only encourages them more. There is some truth to that claim - but on balance the real life of this soldier outweighed some hypothetical future situation.

Others on the panel would have run the video without disguising the soldier's identity.

The session climaxed with a live shot of the building where the soldier was being held being stormed. Would we play the pictures live?

This time the audience was asked what they would do - about 70 to 80% said they would run them live. Everyone on the panel except me said they would run them live. I said I would run them, but with a significant delay, allowing me time to stop the broadcast if something horrific happened.

This was perhaps the easiest decision of all - in a situation where almost everyone involved has a gun, you cannot be sure what the outcome will be, you could be presenting your audience with scenes of extreme violence, or something totally unforeseen could happen. It could end well, and our competitors would have the story well before us, but when lives are in danger it is irresponsible to let competitive instinct trump the need to do the right thing.

In the end we were shown a clip of a dead hostage. He'd been killed because the kidnappers had access to television, and had been tipped off by broadcasters other than the BBC that the building was about to be stormed.

The organised criminal behind it provided our team with a number of options - all girls under five, one as young as 18 months. He boasted about how he had tried and tested routes into the UK. We told him we had had problems adopting a child in the UK - but he wasn't bothered to find out more, and it is clear that most of the children supplied by gangs end up as domestic slaves or in the sex trade.

It was truly shocking to see a man who saw children as commodities - but it was tragic to see families (often living in grinding poverty) prepared to sell their child. One grandfather wanted us to buy a girl without the mother's knowledge.

We decided to investigate this area for a number of reasons. There were a lot of theories that Madeleine McCann could have been abducted by a gang hoping to sell her, and we'd seen Home Office figures suggesting that at least 330 children were sold to people in the UK between 2005 and 2006 (of course they're just the ones the authorities know about).

What became clear is that selling children is a real business - but its roots are in poverty, and abduction is rare. Families are prepared to sell their children without knowing their destination because they want money. Take a look at Sangita Myska's piece (click here) and you will see people with a standard of living that would normally be associated with the developing world, not the European Union.

There were of course major concerns for the safety of the children we showed last night. I want to assure you that we took that incredibly seriously - working very closely with our editorial policy department to make sure that we did not encourage criminal activity or put children in danger. As soon as we knew who the children were we alerted the authorities.

Three people have been detained and the Bulgarian authorities assure us that they are doing all they can for the children. But the sad reality is that people are willing to supply children to a demanding sex trade.

We experimented with a number of formats (there'll be a further announcement shortly about which format was picked):

i) 60 seconds of national news presented by Natasha Kaplinsky.
ii) A 90 second mix of national and regional news - presented by Natasha and with a sequence coming from the West Midlands.
iii) A 60 second summary - presented from the West Midlands.

You can watch an example of one of the bulletins by clicking here.

Viewers who saw the summaries will have noticed that although they clearly came from the BBC News stable, there were some significant differences. They were written in a more "chatty" style, there was a higher instance of domestic news, and entertainment news was regularly included.

So why were we doing this - and why the difference in style?

Audience research revealed that although very strong, BBC News was losing viewers among the young and what the Americans call "blue collar" workers. We decided to find out why this was happening - and what we could do to stop it. We discovered these groups wanted us to be more informal and to include subjects that weren't in more traditional news output. They told us they were interested in the news - but didn't always feel they need to sit through a half-hour programme.

The BBC believes it is important to meet their needs - they are licence payers too.

There will be those who claim we are dumbing down - nothing could be further from the truth. BBC One will continue to carry the One, Six and Ten O'Clock News - all of which will remain unchanged.

Audiences are fracturing and changing as never before - the BBC wants to make sure it meets its public service responsibilities to everyone.