Science reporting and scientific THEORY are two extremely different things. "Dirty snowballs" is easier to explain to stupid people than "snowy dirtballs" which is the description that came out of the Deep Impact mission. NASA press releases will almost always use the former description, while sometimes explaining in later paragraphs "There's more dirt than snow, of course." They'd probably be better off coming up with a better phrase, like "frozen mudball" or something, but that's harder for stupid people to grasp. Don't forget, this is NASA we're talking about. A full third of its budget is dedicated to public outreach, and they cast an extremely wide net. There's no sign of SURFACE water. The jets are coming from reservoirs underneath the surface of the comet, but there's not much to dispute what the jets are actually made of. A simple excerpt will do, particularly if there's a part you think is relevant to the nature of comets/asteroids. Credit for posting a clip about neutron stars, but: Hard to tell from that single (couple of) paragraphs, but it sounds like he's laboring from a misunderstanding of what "neutronium" actually is. Or maybe I am, I don't know. But neutronium in theoretical neutron stars isn't an atomic structure so much as it is a superdense matter where nuclei are packed extremely close together by gravity. It's indeed true that the "normal laws of physics" don't apply because ABNORMAL ones apply in that case. He's extremely correct that the actual evidence for this premise is relatively flimsy -- I haven't thought about that in a long time -- and that the assumptions about the nature of neutron stars are based entirely on the pulse frequency and further assumptions about their cause. There are probably far more likely explanations that would be consistent with known (and testable) physics.