That's amazing. How often do you find errors and how egregious are they?
People cherry pick facts all the time, so I tend to take any citation with a grain of salt.
In more casual reading I will more often find someone making a grand claim with only a citation to support it and I want to make sure that the source actually makes a solid argument for that grand claim. So it might be something like "Charles Babbage predicted the internet" and I need to go see what he actually predicted to see what he actually said/wrote (I just made that example up)
If the podcast is scripted/produced to any significant degree (ie, it's not just a discussion show), I can't think of many reasons why everyone shouldn't be doing this.
Maybe I'd follow some, if they did.
I mean, I don't commute. And it's hard for me to focus simultaneously on what I'm doing and what I'm hearing. I don't even like music with lyrics, unless I'm just chilling.
And generally, I find it much harder to follow audio. Reading anything, I'm always jumping around. I scan, and then loop back for details. And not always linearly. But doing that with audio is nontrivial.
I think one of the reasons for this is that there is more friction involved in quoting and disproving a claim in a podcast, versus a blog post or news article. You can’t just copy/past and then link to a source that disproves the claim. You have to rewind, transcribe, include a time stamp, and the new source.
This is certainly not the only reason, but as someone who has listened to podcasts and wanted to correct things via twitter or wherever, this has been an important factor for me.