Quote:
Originally Posted by mertle
maybe misleading but at time we supposed be cutting back theyre creating these jobs for there buddies.
Thats what making me so angry its seems one rule for us mortals but another for them and there chums.
That would keep 4 jobs in the frontline from needing to be CUT.
|
I am not convinced that this is a pointless job. It would appear a rather wide ranging job covering the entire range of the governments public-facing digital properties, such as the direct gov website amongst others. Quite a big role and the pay is probably quite low for such a responsibility.
There is a massive difference between running a Twitter account and running a government department responsible for a large website and being responsible for any new projects the government may undertake.
To dismiss the entire thing as 'Oh they are in charge of the Twitter' is horrific reporting from a site which is meant to understand and specialise in the medium. I can't find any justification for their spin on the story and can only conclude they intentionally misreported it to support their own bias. Something the Register is quite keen to do the moment something goes against their own beliefs/agenda. It's truly Daily Mail style reporting.