This morning on Metro Morning, CBC once again (they've done this before, many times) seriously misused the term "alleged".  They were dealing with a criminal case and made reference not only to the "alleged perpetrator" but to "the alleged victim".

Now, I understand why they want to use "alleged" for the accused: if he's not found guilty, it would be libelllous simply to refer to him as the perpetrator.  (It would still be better just to follow legal use and say accused rather than alleged, but we'll let that pass.)

However, in this case it was very clear that the victim was a victim of violence -- who committed the violence may not be determined fully, but it is certain, based on published medical evidence, that he was a victim of violence.  This isn't a case of someone (say) claiming to be abducted where it turns out that they've been having a holiday in the Berkshires.  So he is "the victim", outright, not "the alleged victim". I'll allow "his alleged victim", which is borderline, since it can correctly be taken to modify "his" or incorrectly taken to modify "victim" -- but not "the alleged victim".

ETA: The Globe and Mail is also guiltyof this.

I have heard/seen (once heard, once seen) media writers/readers use the form "big of a" today -- once on the CBC's Metro Morning (Matt Galloway) and once in a Globe and Mail article.

When I was growing up this formation was not possible. Now I seem to run into it in supposedly non-slangy contexts all over the place. It grates really seriously.

The CBC also had someone saying "like you and I". At least that is a venerable form, even if it elicits automatic talking back to the radio.

I'm not, as such, a prescriptivist, but the "big of a" usage seems to me to be disconnected from anything else I know in English grammar. It's like saying "how white of a piece of paper is it?"