The Only Way is Ethics: The front-page picture of a mummified sailor lay within the bounds of good taste

Placing death on the front page of a newspaper is rarely done. In almost any circumstances, a decision to show a picture of a dead body so prominently is likely to divide opinion.

Last Tuesday’s Independent devoted half of page one to a remarkable picture that showed a German yachtsman, Manfred Bajarot, whose corpse had been found in his listing boat off the coast of the Philippines. It was said he had been sailing the world for two decades, rarely seen or heard from by friends or family. The cause of his death was uncertain but the climatic conditions had resulted in the natural mummification of his body.

Several readers complained that we should not have used the picture, let alone place it on the front page where it was likely to be seen by children and passing shoppers. Some simply thought the image was distasteful; others felt its publication showed a lack of respect towards the dead man and his family. So, was it the right thing to do?

The photograph had been released by the Filipino authorities and was widely in circulation. There may not have been an overriding public interest in showing the image – the death of a reclusive sailor from another country isn’t of vital importance. But the more critical question is whether publication by The Independent was insensitive to the man’s family; and I’m not convinced that it was, especially bearing in mind how extensively it had already been seen around the world. We did not present the image in a way that trivialised or belittled Mr Bajorat’s demise.

Indeed, on most occasions that newspapers choose to show images of death it is in the context of war or some other large-scale human disaster. On this occasion, the most likely explanation for Mr Bajorat’s demise was a heart attack; how mundane. As such, it was a death with which we can more easily identify, albeit that the situation of his discovery was unusual.

Others may disagree, but to me there was a certain beauty in his preserved form. Far from publication being an act of disrespect, it felt more like a kind of veneration – and perhaps even a useful memento mori for those whose initial reaction was to turn away in horror at something that will come to us all.

Whatever you may think about the editorial decision that led to the appearance of a mummified corpse on last week’s front page, at least we have the freedom to make that choice – and perhaps more importantly to pass judgement on all manner of things from politics to arts, and public policy to sporting performances. The British press remains thankfully removed from the control of politicians.

Not so the Turkish media, which is increasingly burdened by direct interference from government. Last week, the Zaman daily newspaper – a critical voice and thorn in the side of President Erdogan – was placed under the control of “trustees” following a court ruling. It has, in effect, been taken over by the state.

The development led to mass protests, although in truth it is only the latest in a long line of abuses against media freedom in Turkey. Despite its supposedly democratic status, an independent press has always been cautiously viewed by governments in Ankara – under Erdogan’s autocratic rule any pretence at tolerating a free media appears to have been dispensed with.

Press freedom is not a luxury in a democracy, it is a prerequisite. Anyone who cares about democratic values must stand by Zaman.