The thing about Fry is that he is manifestly a very intelligent and cogent man. He is not infallible, but he does not claim to either. I have heard him utter “religion, shit it all” then go on about all the wars that have been fought and people killed as a result. I could easily argue against this with the observation that we have no way of knowing what a world without religion would be like. Also, seeing as most religions do impose a certain amount of moral restraint on their adherents, you could argue that, on the whole, they have saved more lives than they have taken.
In this instance Fry was, in my reading, trying to criticise religion for imposing constraints on free thought. He had a valid point, but weakened it by going off on a mini rant.
There you go. Even if you admire someone for their intellect, you should still be objective.
Starkey versus Fry would be a good watch. I would want Fry to win, but that is irrelevant. It should be down to whose argument held water the better.
The Mail, on the other hand, would blatantly back Starkey to the hilt irrespective. Because they would already have their (small) minds made up. That is the point. Don’t substitute dogma for thinking.
Also consider that media personalities are generally gratified by attention. So we ought to deduce that sometimes they may be saying things at a particular time because they know it will get them talked about. Starkey waded in after the 2011 riots with some observations that were incredibly badly timed, or well timed if you want to cause ructions. He left these comment open-ended deliberately, but his intent was to stimulate a cause and effect connection to be made in the minds of his audience. This was arch manipulation.