THE government today published its green paper setting out the terms for a fundamental review of the BBC.


A slimmed down corporation, focusing more on its public service remit and less on chasing ratings, is the likely outcome of the review.


The review will also cover the BBC's political impartiality (or lack of it, in the eyes of some politicians) and future methods of funding, although the licence fee appears protected for the time being.


Culture Secretary John Whittingdale's appointment to the cabinet was never going to be good news for the BBC.


He was often a fierce critic of the corporation during his time as the chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee.


Further, many of the people he has appointed to the panel of experts who will help carry out the review would not be on Auntie's Christmas card list.


Unsurprisingly, the BBC has come out fighting in the run-up to the green paper being published.


Director-general Tony Hall launched a staunch defence of the corporation when its annual report was published this week and a host of stage and screen stars (including some of the BBC's own highest-paid stars) signed an open letter to the prime minister stating that "a diminished BBC would simply mean a diminished Britain".


By and large, I agree with the views of the likes of Dame Judi Dench, Sir Lenny Henry and JK Rowling.


The BBC is an organisation of which the nation should be proud.


It produces some magnificent broadcasting, much of which is the envy of the world.


I am generalising here, but Conservative politicians tend not to like the BBC's political reporting because they think it has a leftist agenda.


I happen to think that is nonsense.


The Labour Party during Tony Blair's time in office probably clashed far more frequently and far more publicly with the BBC than the Tories have in recent years.


The BBC should be able to hold those in power to account without fear of any political party taking 'revenge' when it forms a government.


That is not to say that I sometimes find the interviewing styles of Jeremy Paxman and John Humphries a little over the top - but I don't believe they give any party an easier time than others.


The size of the BBC is another matter. There are some areas where it has a growing presence that worry me. Regional and local news provision, particularly online, is one of them.


I appreciate the reaction to such a view will be "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"


But I maintain that, as newspapers like the Argus adapt to the digital age, the stiffest competition we face should not come from an organisation funded by the public.


That is not to say we are afraid of competition. But when it comes from an organisation that is not scrabbling for revenue like the rest of us, and has bigger resources than the rest of us, then we are not operating on a level playing field.


The regional newspaper industry is far from blameless for the tough times it has been through and continues to face. But the Topsy-like growth of the BBC's online presence in the regions (particularly when a substantial amount of its digital content originates on local newspaper websites) does not help matters.


The argument that the BBC should not 'chase ratings' by making light entertainment shows like Strictly Come Dancing and The Voice simply does not wash with me.


The BBC has always made popular shows, particularly for the Saturday night audience.

Entertainment is as much a part of its remit as education.


However the BBC is reshaped, I hope it is done with the aim of building on what it does best rather than to suit a political agenda.