I think this is a great idea! I myself am a huge fan of podcasts, as I have relatively large amounts of ear time. My impression is that it might be true for a lot of EAs and, more importantly, the non-EA target audience.
I was considering a podcast as a potential project for Harvard EA, but haven’t found anyone suitable and don’t think I would be a good fit.
As for GiveWell’s conversations page, I wouldn’t think of it as a substitute. The interviews are great, but I rarely find time to read them.
I second EconTalk as a good model. I would also recommend In Our Time (slightly different, multiple guests, but worth checking out). I also think the two rationalist podcasts—Rationally Speaking and Lukeprog’s “Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot” do a pretty good job and might be closer to a realistically attainable level in the short term.
Good luck!
Just stumbled upon this in Baron’s Thinking and Deciding:
“For example, Breyer (1993) argues that the removal of asbestos from school buildings might, if it were done throughout the United States, would cost about $100,000,000,000 and save about 400 lives over a period of 40 years. This comes to $250,000,000 per life saved. (And it might not save any lives at all in total, because it endangers the workers who do the removal.)”—BARON, J. Thinking and Deciding, p.502. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Does anyone know more about the actual implementation/figures? If it was anywhere close to truth, it could serve as PlayPumps-style example of ridiculously ineffective altruism for x-risk.