I get mixed feelings from this article - I get the sense that the author is a bit of a weasel. She seems less interested in asking the Richard about the contents of the new book, and more interested in her personal opinions on atheism and the motivations of the author.

And then there is this not-too-subtle attempt to introduce her opinion that Richard lacks social skills and might even have a mild psychological affliction:

It has been said – on Dawkins’ own website as well as elsewhere – that there may be a relationship between autism or Asperger’s and atheism. A study from the University of Boston suggested that people with mild forms of autism were more likely to be atheists, while some academics theorise that religious thinking is an offshoot of social cognition – that is, ideas learned from others within one’s social group.

Dawkins undoubtedly has a fierce intelligence, but the way in which he communicates has been a problem for many people – it’s telling that on the letter to persuade the government about teaching evolution earlier in schools, the more cuddly Attenborough was enlisted in order to appeal to a wider group

Tactics like this, which couch personal, tangential and pejorative opinions in passive, seemingly dispassionate language..."it has been said...even on Dawkins' own website....", and are designed to allow plausible deniability of any bad intentions of the part of the author, just scream of hack journalism to me.

Can we get one article about the book that actually asks him a bit about the details of the interesting science presented to the children? Are journalists too intimidated even by this level of science to form decent questions?