What I'm curious to know is, why is it that certain countries are preceded by 'The' in their name in journalistic reports? Like 'The Congo'. My initial guess is that it's a direct translation from French, which inserts a 'The' in front of virtually every country. If that's the case, why do we not say 'The France' or 'The China' etc? Recently I heard a BBC reporter refer to Yemen as 'The Yemen'. Is there a rule to this?

باید از نام به رسمیت شناخته شده به وسیله سازمان ملل متحد استفاده کرد

This is an interesting question. Every nation has right to how it wants to be called, just as individuals. However, a name change for a country should be a matter of political consensus. A situation where a group hijacks power and carry out sweeping changes including country name change is although an internal affair leaves much to be desired. To the media, they should be addressed as such since there is not much they can do about it, but as any other thing in life a day of reckoning shall come, then it would be known if the name is generally accetable or not. For a recommendation, i suggest both names be used togethere.g. Myanmar otherwise Burma.

Williams Ekanem, Nigerian Journalist based in the USA

I remember the debate for jehuda and semeria or west bank, or occupied territories and so on.. casino online casino online vip& casino online

Every country has a right to name or rename itself irrespective the nature of government. Where does media fit in? Otherwise why media do not call Russian Federation as Soviet Russia? Can we say that Chine is not People’s Republic of China? Iran is Islamic Republic can we keep on claiming that we will not accept this name? Can we keep on saying that Zimbabwe is still Rhodesia?
Deepali Dhuliya New Delhi

the writing of most journalists often determine how the outside world see your country. personally, i have observed that the BBC often report news about the crisis in Africa neglecting the developments that some African heads are carrying out in the country. this, to me, makes many people who have not been to Africa before think that Africa is a hell on earth. i think if we journalists start searching for positive news about our countries, it will make a difference in how the international world thinks about us.

Naming is one of the most powerful means journalists have .In all cases the name you choose to use has political weight . No journalist can escape the political implementation the name he choose has. ;online casinos . 1 2 3 5

Personally I believe that a country is about its people. It is rather difficult to believe that an oppressive leadership may have the right to change the name of the country with the desire of the general population. What should happen is that a country's name should only be changed with full participation of the people through processes such as a referendum. Congo DR was once what it is today before it was renamed Zaire by late Mobutu. The motive to change the name of the country should not be because of political changes. As Journalists we should go with what the people of a particular country wishes. It should not be because of what our audience wants because we have the power to educate our audience of the change. Some countries around the world are today called by names imposed on them by former colonies. It should therefore not be difficult for the media or the world in general to accept if majority of the people of a particular country chooses to recall their country by INDIGINOUS name. www.cholanewstone@blogspot.com Zambia

The opinion of the journalists, I'm sure, does not overule the values of such country and that of the international bodies like the United Nations. Let's call this spade what it is: changed country names should be called by the names the government of such country christens it. Journalists can however refer to the initial name for the better understanding of their audience.

Ibukun Olagbemiro from Nigeria

Just like a country deserves whatever government it gets, even repressive regimes, it also reserves the right to change its name at any point in its history if it finds a genuine reason to do so. It therefore behoves the media to respect the wish of the people concerned by using the new name correctly. To do otherwise is to editorialise. And I don't think that would be appropriate. Neither can it be sound professional judgement. Since the authorities have dumped Burma and have chosen Myanmar, journalists should respect that.
Thanks. SHOLA OSHUNKEYE Editor, The Spectator newspaper, Lagos, Nigeria

What is in a name? In a name is found, among other things, the inherent quality of identification. A place, a thing and or a place is easily identified based on the acquired or given name. Politics has got a certain kind of catch on people worldview depending on which part of the divide one stand on a particular issue.

Time and consistency have also got a lot to say about shaping people worldview on political issues especially. Is indicated in the kickoff, names of country have been changed before. This is no new phenomenon. Some are informed based on secession, right to self determination or historical or other underlying reason. A few sample will suffice: Senegabia= Gambia, Senegal; Zaire= Congo; Ivory Coast= Cote d’ Ivoire etc.

So, what is the big deal calling Burma Myanmar. As argued in one of the comments the use of the word “former, one time called, or now called will still give an idea of the area being talked about. As to whether a change of a country's name by an alleged violent regime should informed a particular media outlet on the kind of name to called that country is something to be fathomed. But then, who set the stage or the agenda. Taking side in reporting is not only unethical but unholy. Neutrality is the key word in journalism of substance. So let the BBC listen to the words of wisdom and conduct a poll among socalled Burmese as to whether the new name is anything they love to be called by. Arguement by the BBC that their audience is used to Burma is archaic and portends mischief aimed at undermining the change that the people of Myanmar see in the new name.

Nathan N. Mulbah Monrovia, Liberia, West Africa.

Actually, this problem is quite common here in Uganda i.e. each new regime renames everything. Usually journalists go with the new name. Sometimes however, the old name persists. Good example is the popular city market. It had been known for years as Owino Market. The city managers changed it to St Balikudembe Market. The old name stuck even among journos. Sometimes I wonder; is because the old name is easier to pronounce, recall than the new?

i am a journalist from Myanmar. Before talking about the usage of Myanmar and Burma, i want to tell the language and history of Myanmar or Burma. in Myanmar language, the word 'Myanmar' represents all the people living in the country, while the word 'Burma' represents only to the majority Burmese people. So that, in my opinion it would be more appropriate to use the word 'Myanmar', instead of Burma.

Myanma is the name has been called by the local people before the British invaded the country. Like Kampuchea was the name given by the local people before the westerns invaded Cambodia.

If a country chooses to rename itself, the media cannote arrogate to themselves the right, for reasons of politics, convenienceor any other, to refer to it by any other name.

Vijay Menon India

What happened to the 'in-house' names we are supposed to have known over time? Various media houses have their particular preferences for such 'troublesome' country and city names and decide on what name to use in all their publications. Sometimes a media house could use "Burma" and explain (now known as Myanmar) or "Myanmar" (former Burma). It has always been so and I don't see the reason why this has to come up in the first place

What happened to the 'in-house' names we are supposed to have known over time? Various media houses have their particular preferences for such 'troublesome' country and city names and decide on what name to use in all their publications. Sometimes a media house could use "Burma" and explain (now known as Myanmar) or "Myanmar" (former Burma). It has always been so and I don't see the reason why this has to come up in the first place.