When Jennifer Grech of The Times Weekender asked me to comment on the media reports that the Vatican had issued a list of new sins I was a little taken aback. "New sins?" I asked myself.

I looked up reports in local newspapers and did a Google search. Reuters and several other media outlets had let all and sundry know of this latest "decision" of the Vatican. Aren't there enough sins to choose from, a sensible bloke would ask himself, why the need to add more? Could it be that the top brass at the Vatican had discovered some hitherto unknown activity and immediately decreed it as a sin because some people were joyously engaging themselves in its pursuits?

One paper sensationally reported that "people who don't pick up their dogs' addition to the environment in the park may be risking more than a fine - they may be putting their souls at risk of damnation." Not a bad idea, I think. Such pests - the owners and not the dogs - deserve nothing better than being buried under their dog's addition to the environment. Others said that "as the seven ancient wonders of the world were matched by seven modern wonders, the seven deadly sins have been given a modern version for a globalised world."

These reports betray the perception that sins are like edicts or decisions taken by a central authority. As the Local Council decides which street is one way and which one isn't, the Vatican, so to speak, can declare which particular behaviour is a sin and which isn't. And if the Vatican says something is a sin then a sin it becomes. If it declares that something is no longer a sin and it consequently evaporates into thin air.

There is nothing further from the truth. As I wrote in The Times' Weekender sins are not decided by the Vatican. A sin is our loving relationship with God or neighbour gone awry. The Ten Commandments give us the basic framework of this relationship but its concrete understanding is fine tuned as time passes. As a result, different lists of sins are given to address the needs felt in different circumstances. Scripture provides several lists of them due to different emphasis that were felt had to be met to address particular evolving circumstances.

Tamiflu tablets

I will not repeat here the arguments I expounded in the Weekender. My point here is a different one. The controversy under review shows little about the nature of sin but says a lot about the media and the way they work in our society.

The commercialisation of the media changed them from informers to sensationalists. The media change human drama into spectacle and truth into spin. A concept of news value has been developed based on the idea that what bleeds leads. And if it does not bleed make it appear as if it is bleeding. A bishop speaking about the Catholic theology of sin is not news but if his words are turned around to make them sound as if he is inventing new sins than we do have a headline. A third world country's project of irrigation and its literacy or immunisation campaigns are not news. But riots in the same country are news.

The media dangle in front of us the carrot of instant information and wallpaper coverage. We need instant news, they say, so much so that we cannot wait for the news bulletin on radio or TV. We need to receive an update on our mobile. And for the day time or evening viewing we are made to believe that we need a satellite that can receive one thousand stations. But who on earth has enough time to watch one thousand stations most of which dish out the same rubbish albeit in different languages?

Business and news are one and the same thing because news is now a business. It is a commodity which has to be sold to increase the value of the shares of the owners. They tell us that pluralism is the order of the day but in actual fact the number of mega-organisations that control the world's media is becoming less and less.

We are the victims of this large circus. We should be conscious of this abuse of our freedom and intelligence. We should stop letting ourselves be - as Postman says - amused to death. We need something to remind us of our possible state of enslavement.

I have such an object. In my bedroom/studio I have hundreds of books discussing the media. But the object that shows their nature more than any other is a box of Tamiflu tablets. Do you remember the panic created two or three years ago? The world was on the verge of a pandemic, we were told. People would die in their millions. Most were panic stricken. When a ship entered the Free Port and a couple of dead birds were found on deck people went into hysterics. Bird flu was the word that terrorised all of us. Tamiflu was marketed as our salvation. A partial salvation till a new and perhaps more expensive fill was manufactured. Mega-companies made millions.

We thought that we were being informed and served by the media. We were, in fact, being conned.

I purposely keep on my desk the box of Tamiflu I had bought then. It is a constant reminder of the power of the media, of the fear it can generate and the gullibility that we can manifest.

One final word of advice. Watch TV and enjoy it but do not take it too seriously. While watching, besides cans of beer, have large doses of salt available not just pinches. Use it generously.

Let the citizen beware.

PS A friend of mine told me not to write about this subject as no one would be interested. People are too alienated to be conscious of their alienation, he said. No one will write or comment was his final word of warning. I did not heed his words, took the risk and wrote. Will my readers prove him right?