Not much to be worked up over, normally, though considering this is Dawkins and the sort of crap he regularly stoops to to gain headlines, why not enjoy the fun?
I enjoyed the quip about how maybe Dawkins has a slave-owning gene he inherited. Of course, Dawkins also fired back that he had anglican clergy in his family tree, so perhaps he could be accused of having a genetic predisposition to piety as well?
Which makes me wonder... well, why not? No one would suggest that a gene makes one more likely to be a Christian in particular, but general religiosity - particularly, the traits the Cult of Gnu loves to associate with religiosity? Why not? After all, Dennett suggested that Marxism was either a religion or, at least, a proto-religion. Certainly Cult of Gnu atheism can qualify in principle, if we're going to work with that entire line of reasoning.
Either way, apparently some journalists have decided to soften Dawkins up prior to the Big Atheist Ho-Down next month. It's a change of pace.
Edit: And now Dawkins' little weaselly "I'm an agnostic technically so I can avoid saying I make positive claims" move bites him in the ass, with the big headline being 'WORLD'S MOST FAMOUS ATHEIST SAYS HE CAN'T RULE OUT THAT GOD EXISTS'. Now, as Vox said, Dawkins is being semi-consistent here - this whole '6 out of 7 certainty' schtick isn't new to Dawkins. On the flipside, that doesn't prevent me from getting a grin out of Dawkins flailing around on this. Especially given his past antics and his general approach to these questions.
If you're going to play the soundbite and mockery game, don't cry foul when once in a great while the same game is played on yourself.