I wouldn't go as far as calling her an 'incredibly biased hack'. To be fair, her method of analyzing the infrared data of satellite imagery helped her find a new viking settlement in Iceland (shown in this documentary).

While she is certainly optimistic about the technology, I don't recall her saying that the ruins of a fire cracked rock (said to be caused by high heat indicating possible iron smelting)/iron dating to 1000 AD found in Newfoundland were conclusive. In fact, the documentary presents the facts as inconclusive. I think the documentary did a good job of providing the evidence without making any conclusions. They were opinions from both sides.

Yes, the seed was dated to 1781 AD, but the iron was dated to 1000 AD, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it being a Viking iron smelting place. There were artifacts from both 1781 (the seed) and 1000 AD (the iron), just because there was a seed from 1781 does not render the iron from 1000 found to be null. In addition, one of the experts on Vikings excavations found bands in the soil in the area that he referred to as likely being turf blocks, a common construction feature of Viking settlements.

So I really wouldn't go so far as saying "Not a single reading implied anything on the site was from anything close to the period when Norse contacted North America." There was iron from 1000, and what appeared to be evidence of turf blocks. Is it conclusive? No. But it certainly isn't a clear cut "nothing" as you seem to be putting it.

In addition this documentary presents many facts about viking culture as well, it's only the last 15-30 minutes of the documentary that focus on the possibility of the Newfoundland find. It's an interesting documentary overall.