Mail continues to prove 'burying corrections' is no myth

The PCC has just published details of another apology by the Mail, which was published on 3 May 2011:

A report carried online on 25 March (Fisherman husband of Tory MP drowns after becoming tangled up in his own net) stated that it was believed that Neil Murray, husband of East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray, had drowned after falling overboard. We now understand that this was incorrect, and that Mr Murray was found on board his vessel. We are sorry for the error.

Once again, the Mail has placed this apology in the US section of its website. This is (at least) the fourth time this has happened during May, although one of these has since been moved to a more appropriate place.

It was only on 2 February 2011 that the PCC issued new guidance on online prominence. It states:

editors should give consideration to appropriate placement on the relevant section where the original article appeared (such as the "news" or "showbusiness" section, for example).

And on 2 December 2010, the Editor's Code of Practice Committee, which oversees the Code policed by the PCC, announced a rule change on corrections that was:

designed to help kill the myth that newspapers and magazines routinely bury corrections.

If that is a 'myth', why has the Mail website been routinely placing corrections to British stories in the US section of its website?

The Chair of the Code of Practice Committee is Paul Dacre.

The editor-in-chief of the Mail is Paul Dacre.

If any publication should be taking the lead in making sure retractions are not buried, shouldn't it be the Mail?