So I hear anecdotally.

But right now--at least according to YouGov--Tyson is well-known and well-liked: 44% like to 10% dislike (https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/explore/public_figure/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson).

That's a pretty unlikely ratio unless your statement applies to only a modest fraction of white people these days.

Tyson doesn't reach quite the stellar heights of Jane Goodall when it comes to high positives, low negatives, and widespread recognition, but other than her, no-one prominent who is associated with science or medicine is as highly-regarded as Tyson is.

Don't forget that at the time, Tyson had just launched the revamped Cosmos series, which was being advertised everywhere, and the original article makes sure to point that out.

It's also worth noting that Cosmos excoriates the Catholic Church and religion more generally for its anti-evidence, anti-intellectual stance. If you want to get a segment of the right really hopping mad, going after religion is a darned good way to do it.

So I really do think you're selling Tyson short here. He was, and still is, head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to being the public face of science and reason. And they had multiple reasons to choose him over anyone else, race notwithstanding.