As an explanation of the physics of polarizers, the photographer's is screwed up. He's presenting a model or metaphor to give photographers something to have in their head as a way to understand the phenomenon.  We do this in physics all the time.  For example, in some applications it's useful to think of an electron as a tiny shiny sphere.  Of course, it is not. 

The metaphor approach can be useful.  The shame in this case is that he could have easily produced an easily understood metaphor that is pretty close to being correct.   Since he didn't do that, I suspect that he doesn't really know how polarizers work.

Now, the two videos you've chosen to present try to describe two different kinds of polarizers.  The photographer's polarizer is unlikely to be a wire grid polarizer.  The description of the operation of the wire grid polarizer is largely correct, although he does not explain how the perpendicularly polarized light is transmitted.  The wire grid is actually a *beam splitter*, a device that divides a beam of light into two beams.  
In the case of a wire grid, the reflected and transmitted beams are linearly polarized in perpendicular directions.  

The photographer's polarizer is likely constructed from oriented long molecules. His model as an array of lines is not even wrong, and the picture is so close to that of the wire grid that one might think that that's what he's trying to do: explain a wire grid polarizer.  He is not. The molecules absorb light polarized along the length of the molecule, but does not absorb light perpendicular.  So only the perpendicular light gets through.  The photographer's polarizer is not a beam splitter.  The "wrong" polarization is absorbed, not redirected.   (I describe the mechanism as absorption in long molecules.  There are other constructions that absorb light preferentially in one polarization, so it's not a certainty that photographer's is made of long oriented molecules.)  That's not such a difficult picture, I think.