In a post at http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/editor-of-glamour-criticises-mails-liz.html we get one from May 2012 - interestingly, as with John Prescott, the victim of the inaccurate story sought some form of justice (retraction) not via the PCC but via Twitter
Jo Elvin, the editor of Glamour, took to Twitter on 9 May 2012 to dispute a claim made by Liz Jones in a Mail article several days before:A second May 2012 post from the same blog - on which you'll find many useful stories about issues across the entire press - this time on made-up, distorted claims about cancer drugs being delayed:
On 15 May, the Daily Mail published this story:
The next day, Andrew Dillon, Chief Executive of the 'rationing body' NICE sent a letter of correction to the Mail:
NICE has never taken 9 years to make a recommendation to the NHS on the use of a new drug (New cancer drugs held up by the NHS for nine years, 16 May).
The gap between a new drug becoming available to prescribe and NICE guidance being published is around 5 months. The study, on which your article was based, included drugs that were licensed for use, in some cases, more than 5 years before NICE was established. Its conclusions are both misleading and unhelpful for those who rely on our advice.
Making sure that we provide advice on the best use of all important new drugs quickly remains our priority and we have the resources and the commitment to do it.
There are endless examples of this cavalier disregard for accuracy - well, 619 as of today!!!
You can also read about the Mail demanding another blogger removed references to a story it had removed from its website following a complaint, claiming this was backed by the PCC - who denied they backed the demand: http://dailyquail.blogspot.co.uk/.
Then there's http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/ to consider too!
and of course