• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Wolverine Cablevision (Battle Creek, Michigan) March 1968

CPLANAS1985

CPLANAS1985

Wolverine Cablevision was a small cable company in the state of Michigan from the 1960s into the 1990s... Today, Battle Creek is serviced by Comcast through Xfinity...

Requested by: mpepin

Source: Newspapers.com

3. WKZO Kalamazoo 3 (then and now, still CBS, now as WWMT)
4. Purdue University Educational Television
5. WKBD Detroit 50 (Independent, now CW)
6. WJIM Lansing 6 (then and now, still CBS, now as WLNS)
8. WOOD Grand Rapids 8 (then and now, still NBC)
9. 24 Hour Weather/Cable Access
10. WILX Onondaga (Lansing) 10* (then and now, still NBC)
10. WMSB East Lansing 10* (NET, now PBS as WKAR on 23)
11. Purdue University Educational Television
13. WZZM Grand Rapids 13 (then and now, still ABC)**

* WILX and WMSB were two split stations on channel 10 from 1959 to 1972 when WMSB moved to channel 23 as WKAR...
** One of two ABC affiliates in West Michigan, the other being WOTV 41, Battle Creek (NOT yet on the air in 1968)...
 
newsmark said:
Does anyone know more about the Purdue University Educational Television channels listed about on channels 4 and 11? I'm wondering whether it was something distributed by microwave or videotape.

Or was it the airplane transmitters used by a consortium but based at Purdue? https://www.chicagotelevision.com/MPATI.htm
Click to expand...

If it was 1968, as the topic title indicates, it was not MPATI (yes, I researched and wrote an article about that as well), but it may have been a retransmission of the ITFS stations licensed to Purdue after MPATI was discontinued two years previous.
 
K.M. Richards said:
If it was 1968, as the topic title indicates, it was not MPATI (yes, I researched and wrote an article about that as well), but it may have been a retransmission of the ITFS stations licensed to Purdue after MPATI was discontinued two years...
Click to expand...
@newsmark @K.M. Richards I'm sorry... I only wrote what I saw in the article... I wish I had known this information beforehand...
 
CPLANAS1985 said:
I'm sorry... I only wrote what I saw in the article... I wish I had known this information beforehand...
Click to expand...

With all due respect to the Chicago Television History site and other such sites created by fans of the medium, the articles contained in same often have a lack of thorough research (as does Wikipedia a lot of the time).

There seems to be a tendency to post "that's what I remember" as if it were fact. And, given the availability of sources like David (Eduardo) Gleason's World Radio History site -- which is also the host for the UHF History site these days -- and archives such as Newspapers.com, there is no excuse for posting fuzzy memories as fact. For my part, I have used both of those resources extensively in what I have written, and on those rare occasions when I am challenged by readers, I always ask for citations.

But I rarely get any in response.

So I do not blame you for using what you had available when you wrote what you did. I do blame the author of that article for a lack of thoroughness in his research (however much he did, it obviously was insufficient). And I also noted that his article was written 20 years ago with no apparent intent of making corrections ... one telling point is that he says the MPATI call letters are "lost to history" when I was able to find them in the Broadcasting archive simply by searching for "MPATI". I imagine that if he wanted to -- and I don't think any of his articles are newer than a decade old -- he could do a great job of updating those by doing that extra research using resources unavailable when he wrote them originally.

The internet is a wonderful source of information, but there are no controls on incomplete -- or worse, incorrect -- articles being posted and then taken as factual.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom