Abstract The claim that media ‘simulate’ political transparency is misleading. It suggests that the ‘simulated’ exists in opposition to the ‘real’ or ‘true’ and, in turn, that transparency should give access to a political reality or ‘truth’ otherwise distorted. This truth or reality is, however, illusory. Transparency should be seen as a process of requiring persons in relations of community with others to account for their actions, understandings and commitments as regards matters directly relevant to those relations. Such an approach denies any simple public‐private divide, emphasises breach of trust in (diverse kinds of) relations of community as the justification for publicising personal conduct and circumstances, and treats scandal (as a matter of legitimate news) as the public revelation of these breaches of trust.
[1]
J. Balkin.
Ideology as Constraint
,
1991
.
[2]
R. Cotterrell.
Law's Community: Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective
,
1995
.
[3]
T. Nairn.
The enchanted glass : Britain and its monarchy
,
1990
.
[4]
Jerome Frank,et al.
Law and the modern mind
,
1931
.
[5]
R. Cotterrell.
A Legal Concept of Community
,
1997,
Canadian journal of law and society.
[6]
Jack M. Balkin,et al.
How Mass Media Simulate Political Transparency
,
1999
.
[7]
C. Geertz.
The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays
,
1975
.
[8]
J. Balkin.
Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology
,
1998
.
[9]
Walter Bagehot,et al.
The English Constitution
,
1867
.