Hopefully, the following does not apply to my fellow Blogcritics writers and editors, because we are the all-knowing sinister cabal, after all. But it seems to me that we're losing the language in many English-speaking countries.
A form of grammatical atrophy has set in, whereby people cannot seem to tell the difference betwen "your" and "you're" (indeed, one wonders if this contraction is even known anymore). Even intelligent people have started writing "your" for "you're." Your is second person possessive. You're is simply a contraction of "you are."
Then there's the famous "its" versus "it's." A fundamental difference between the two words that should have been forever drilled into one's brain during elementary school is something else a lot of the populace has forgotten or become very confused over. Its is the possessive form for the third impersonal object - we don't employ an apostrophe for yours, his or hers so it follows that its does not have one. It's, like "your," is simply a contraction for "it is" or "it has." I have seen articles of MSN.com, ESPN, and other on-line magazines/news sources where the writer or copy editor (or both) did not use the correct form of the word.
Speaking of apostrophes, how many times have we come across written statements like "I'm going to take the dog's for a walk." An apostrophe is used only with s for possessives - "Stephen's," "the dogs' bones," "the people's candidate," "the men's changing room," etc. - or for contractions - "you've," "he's," "didn't," etc.
Lastly, there is the issue of "could of." Could of is completely nonsensical. Because the contraction "'ve" and the word "of" are so similar in sound, most people erroneously believe that "could of" is the correct form. But it's always could've, would've and should've. Think about it, does "I should of done that" make any sense? (What you should've done was pay better attention during your English classes!)