That looks like an accurate process.
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.