I'm asking because your process could equally be used by someone very well informed, and someone who had managed to misinform themself severely.
The latter being due to cognitive errors where they lacked enough information to form a valid judgment, and Daniel Kahneman's "What You See Is All There Is" process silently filling in the gaps. I see this frequently in people overtly skeptical of the media.
But on the other hand, skeptical people are also often correct, as the media warrants critical reading.
Perhaps you think I'm trying to average out what everyone says as if the truth was always in the middle? That could scarcely be further from the truth. Especially in politics, both sides are lying, though perhaps to different degrees and neither side is true. Thus, I separate facts from opinions and look for which items can be corroborated. So if someone is reporting that X said Y, I would look for a video of exactly what X said and see it directly.
One example that comes to mind simply because I did a lot of legwork just to see who was telling the truth is when I was told by CNN that it was illegal to read Wikileaks [1] and that there was essentially nothing to see there except some metaphorical sausage being made. Then I find out that this isn't true [2], and that Chris Cuomo is a licensed attorney who one might think would know better. [3]
Then I find out that they were exposed in Wikileaks, cheating on the debates. [4] I also heard claims that the emails were altered. [5] The claims of alteration are later proven false because the email referenced in [4] has a DKIM signature, signed by both 1e100.net (Google) and hillaryclinton.com which provides cryptographic non-repudiation. It also explicitly covers the body of the email--note the 'b' and 'bh' parameters in both DKIM signatures, clearly visible when you 'view source'. It's well known that CNN terminated their relationship with Donna. As far as I know, however, nobody ever figured out who she got the questions from, so presumably they're still there.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A
[2] https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-r...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cuomo
What I meant is that people frequently find truth locally, but miss a lot of larger context because of narrow focus.
For instance, those videos and articles are about Clinton's emails. A lot of people analyzing that issue determined, correctly "Clinton made mistakes in email management".
The error there would be to think, without examination "Trump would be better at document security", or to hold the slightly more nefarious belief "therefore, clinton is the worse choice on document security". They're the same statement, of course, but cognitively the second one makes the believer less likely to notice they only examined one half of the equation.
The media more or less ignored Trump's data security practices, so there was no opportunity to raise the question if you only do media analysis. It's a comparison you have to do on your own.
Now, given the revelations about discussing classified documents in the open with u secured cellphones at mar a lago, it seems likely Trump is worse on data security.
This was something I think was possible to figure out before the election.
So, if you held the following belief, congratulations:
"Clinton has made errors in data management, but I have no idea if Trump is better and this has no impact on my comparison" or
"Clinton made errors, but based on other external evidence Trump may well be as bad"
But if you left things unexamined, you may have fallen into a trap. Both youtube channels you linked are Trump supporter channels. Did you analyze them as well? (In that case, the question to ask is not "is this video footage real, but instead "why am I seeing this footage at all? What do they want me to conclude?"
To more concretely state the error I'm worrying about: many people exercise skepticism only with regard to the mainstream media, but then are fairly credulous when dealing with alternative sources.
And for what it's worth, I don't watch CNN. But if you had told me they said if's illegal to read Wikileaks, I would have said "that's absurd, there's no such law".
I have a background of political knowledge and context that lets me make that judgement. My worry when I read people expressing skepticism of mainstream sources is that they frequently lack that context, and are vulnerable to being right on a few details and wrong on the larger picture.
As for who is better on document security, I wouldn't go down that rabbit hole to begin with. Have you read Assange's rationale for creating Wikileaks? The gist of it is that creating a leak culture raises the cost of conspiracies. This means that it's more difficult for any small group in power to plot against the public. So it's not really about document security, but closer to the opposite: to promote leaks so that nobody can control the flow of information.
So it's not about Trump or Clinton or any such short-sighted political machinations, but rather to ensure that nobody can get away with conspiring against the public.
It doesn't matter if the conspirator is Hillary or Flynn or whoever else. The point is to ensure that everyone is accountable. You can see how much this is hated by both sides these days, each calling the other hypocrite when they decry leaks against themselves. You can also see how those in power hate this from the Todd & Claire site, which I've seen very little press regarding.
Speaking of that, it's funny how a bunch of people on different continents coordinate with a sham of a porn site / UN "partner" to frame someone as a pedophile, but it barely warrants any mention, no? You read a lot of news, no? How much coverage have you seen? How much do you know about that? Doesn't it seem like a rather odd thing to ignore?
