[urhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7430621.stm]BBC stars 'only paid market rate'[/url]A report into how much the BBC pays stars such as Jonathan Ross is expected to clear the corporation of exceeding the going market rate.

The review, commissioned by the corporation's governing body, the BBC Trust, will also say such salaries have not inflated pay in the talent market.

It comes after pay details were leaked last year, including a three-year deal for Ross reportedly worth £18m.

The BBC defended the talent salaries at a Commons select committee last year.

Some licence fee-payers, politicians and rival broadcasters have raised concerns the BBC pays their stars too much.

The reported Ross deal was said to have influenced multi-million pound contracts struck by ITV to secure the services of Simon Cowell and Ant and Dec.

But BBC director general Mark Thompson defended the top pay deals in front of a Commons select committee last year, saying that a BBC which did not secure big stars would not please the public.

The pay review by economists Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates, which began in the autumn, is due out later.

For the non-UK people out there, the BBC is paid for by the public through the compulsory TV licence - it's like paying for cable, only you don't get a choice in whether you pay for it or not. This means that the BBC have to justify the money that they spend on stuff like this. (It's also why much of the BBC's more 'marketable' programming, like Doctor Who, Life on Mars, Top Gear and Spooks is contracted out to production companies rather then made in-house so that it can be flogged overseas.)

Anyway. Jonathan Ross. £18m over 3 years. Do you think he's worth it. I say yes. He has good connections - gets good guests on his chat show and generally gets good interviews out of them. I think he's one of the UK's most recognisable stars at the moment, so it's reasonable that he's being paid good money!