Sud makes a good point, and it's not merely an issue of the populace in general not caring; most professional/academic linguists would agree here that using 'who' as the object term is not Bad and Wrong. The assumption that 'whom', a term not employed by the majority of English speakers, should - under the circumstances so eruditely recorded by Footprints and Xemorph - be more correct than the use of 'who' would be, and that people who prefer to use the latter are somehow misusing the language, is a basically flawed one.
The 'correct' way of saying or writing something is not necessarily the way that people said or wrote it fifty years ago. There is no decay of language; only evolution. More recent editions of many dictionaries list 'whom' as rarely used, implying that in some cases it may be entirely obsolete.
I love pedants dearly - I have to, I'm British - but it gets to the point where we have angry letters to newspapers complaining that kids these days are saying 'orchard' instead of the (obviously correct) 'ort yard', what is the world coming to, signed Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Without this kind of evolution, English wouldn't be the amusingly illogical hybrid that it is today.
And since it is now, as one will note from scanning through most modern literature, an endangered species, I feel it my duty to state that no whoms were harmed in the production of this node.