# Talk:WBNX-TV

I re-inserted the info on WCOT-TV.  While normally I would agree that a CP for a channel allocation warrants a separate article (if, indeed, it warrants any article at all!) from that of the station now occupying that channel, WCOT-TV was to be located in the same place, and effectively operated by the same company that would put WBNX-TV on the air.  Unless this info turns out to be unverifiable, I say we keep it in the article. -- SwissCelt 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I was a bit ambiguous in my thoughts.  Though I admit I haven't seen the (new) article yet, I believe at this time WCOT should be merged into WBNX-TV.  I highly doubt there's enough to say about the old (and never-on-the-air) WCOT to warrant a separate article.  More importantly, though, WCOT is integral to WBNX-TV's history, and would make an excellent section for the latter article. -- SwissCelt 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The history of WCOT is a seperate issue from the history of WBNX. The owner of WBNX was not to operate under the same call letters as the former owner of WCOT. Therefore, WCOT's history including the use of the concrete tower should be placed in a seperate article. The owner of WBNX never purchased the concrete tower nor had anything to do with it's history (Source: Summit County Ohio public records). Although, it may be an interesting fact, it really doesn't belong in an article about WBNX-TV, which began in 1985. The only connection between WCOT and WBNX is the sale of the original television license and that should be left intact within the article. The only television station to actually exist is WBNX, since WCOT never went on the air. Also, thank you SwissCelt for the more in-depth radio station information. -- [Broadcast Today] 20 February 2006

Where was WCOT to be located?  I got the impression that it was at what was later Ernest Angley's broadcasting studios; that is, at the former Cathedral of Tomorrow.  If this is true, I really think there's as much a continuum here as there is with WABD-WNEW-WNYW as it changed hands from DuMont to Metromedia to Fox (respectively).  Just because a station has new call letters and a new owner does not necessarily mean it's a different station altogether.  (Besides, do we really need a separate article about a TV station that never aired??) -- SwissCelt 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
WCOT was never built nor was any broadcasting equipment ever purchased. There were video recordings that took place at the Cathedral of Tomorrow at that time, but the WCOT license never went beyond just being a license from the FCC. WBNX, the television station, was built from the ground up, as their transmitter was located in a completely different city and their offices were located in a remodeled section of the complex next door to the Cathedral of Tomorrow. WCOT was to broadcast from the cement tower which is now owned by Kreiger. In 1985, when WBNX went on the air, it began broadcasting from a tower in Brecksville, but later built a new building, transmitter, tower and antenna in Parma. In fact, it's the tallest tower built in the Cleveland area and is now also a home to some radio station antennas. The studio that you're referring to was where video tapings took place, not any "broadcasting". The two stations are different; WCOT was to be a religous station, whereas WBNX is a secular station. The video production company that was originally part of the Cathedral of Tomorrow moved out of town and is known as Classic Worldwide owned by Jerry Patton. So, as you see, there's two different histories from two entirely different stations. The existing one simply purchased the only FCC broadcasting license available at that time. As far as whether the detailed history of WCOT deserves it's own page; I believe those details are better off on its own page than to include it as part of the history of WBNX's details. A mere mention of where the license was purchased from is fine to include, but all those details of what WCOT was supposed to be are not part of WBNX's details. As I'm sure you are aware, Wikipedia articles sometimes can go off onto tangent stories that really have little or nothing to do with the main subject of the article. I appreciate you wanting to discuss this. If the WCOT page is to be deleted, I would not object. Broadcast Today, 21 February 2006

I think, at the very least, the info you provided deserves the chance to be heard... er, read.  I'll do nothing about it for now, and I eagerly await the article.  You may be right:  This article may well be worthwhile. -- SwissCelt 16:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Article should've already been available. I'm looking into what happened to it. Maybe it was already deleted. It wasn't much to read, but I've seen less written about subjects. Broadcast Today, 21 February 2006.
Please note that there's also a WCOT-FM in Jamestown, New York, which is actually broadcasting and therefore has at least as much right to the title as the never-launched predecessor of WBNX. If you feel strongly that the old WCOT deserves its own separate article, put it at WCOT-TV; the unsuffixed WCOT has to be either the station that actually is broadcasting with that call sign, or a disambiguation page. Bearcat 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Bearcat. No, I don't feel strongly that the never-actually-aired WCOT-TV should have its own page. The way you have it is appropriate. Broadcast Today 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The following text was removed from WCOT as it is a dabpage:
UHF Analog channel 55 was originally allocated to Akron as WCOT-TV,[1]. The license was awarded to Rex Humbard in the very late 1970's. The station began being built by 1981. The original plan was for the station to be 18 hours a day of Christian programming including several runs of the 700 Club per day, which at the time was seen on WUAB, and brokered time to other evangelists (keep in mind none of this ever went on the air over WCOT-TV since the station never signed on). The station also planned to run a couple hours a day of Christian programs produced by Rex Humbard. Late afternoons were to be secular family type entertainment and cartoons. But the station was never able to get on the air. Rex Humbard's ministry began to have financial difficulties and was unable to finish the transmitter.
In 1985, Rex Humbard sold the construction permit to Winston Broadcasting, an arm of the Ernest Angley Ministries. Construction of WCOT-TV ceased and a new station, WBNX-TV went on the air Dec. 1, 1985 as a secular for-profit broadcaster. The unfinished concrete tower which still stands behind Grace Cathedral was originally intended to hold WCOT's transmission tower. That tower was never purchased or used by WBNX, but is owned by Krieger Communications and used for cellular phone transmissions.
Integrate as you see fit. JPG-GR 03:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the way it is now (Nov. 12,2007) with a brief mention of a proposed WCOT and the fact that it never aired is sufficient. The "history" of what WCOT was to be has no place in the WBNX page since, first of all, it is pure conjecture and unsourced, and second, it is a seperate identity with the only connection being the unused license being sold from one party to another. This has been discussed in length (see above) and it was agreed upon to keep the "histories" seperate as one has nothing to do with the other except the change of ownership of the FCC license before anything actually went on the air. Broadcast Today 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the info be removed again.  There are three references in Broadcasting that make the timeline and reported sale a work of fiction by whoever wrote it in the first place:  (1) Humbard got the FCC authorization for channel 55 on November 17, 1967 ... not "the late 1970s".  (2) The FCC cancelled said authorization for failure to construct on August 27, 1976, meaning Humbard had no construction permit to sell in 1982.  (3) By 1982, there were five applicants for a new channel 55 authorization and the FCC was conducting comparative hearings.  The winning applicant was "Rhema Television Corp." not "Winston Broadcasting Network" and I have yet to find evidence that Angley owned Rhema, which was the licensee of record when they signed on.  I did not edit the page because I am uncertain if what may remain after removing the erroneous material is even worth keeping, since it is about a station that never went on the air.  -- [K.M. Richards] 24 August 2019 108.206.128.232 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Even after trying to correct the timeline, I agree that it should be removed. WCOT currently exists in another state and therefore it could have it's own page on Wikipedia. There is erroneous material in a blog I found, therefore that can't be sourced either. The FCC shows the ownership of WBNX-TV. Therefore, this article, without the conjecture (probably innocently based on the erroneous blog someone read), should be removed. The history of WBNX-TV is what this article is about and it began in 1985. GoGeo (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I edited that section according to consensus. I also added a brief detail about WCOT's current status as a government access channel in Florida because it was mentioned in the "Early Days" section. I believe that should suffice and add clarity.GoGeo (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Image:Wbnx CW HD.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While it's true every station tries to keep within the FCC lines, WBNX takes/took it a lot further.
They edited out words such as "damn", "hell" and even non-profane, but not exactly pretty words such as "crap".
Obviously, the Christian nature of the ownership group is the biggest reason for this.
Keep in the mention of Angley's ownership in regards to the editing, because he takes it further than the average UHF Fox/CW/My Net station.
Thank You.
Vjmlhds 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Vjmlhds. Your contributions are admirable for the page on WBNX, but I double checked with WBNX to see if they are indeed editing out profanity such as damn and hell out of any syndicated programming. They are not as their contracts do not allow that. They do edit out profanities that are not permitted by the FCC. Maybe you were thinking of when that station first came on air and those times were more conservative and FCC rules were tighter. As all stations have experienced, rules have changed and even movie directors are not allowing their films to be edited. Saving Private Ryan is an example of a film in which many broadcast stations won't air it because Spielberg won't allow editing and some stations don't want any trouble with the FCC so they simple won't air it to stay on the safe side. WBNX has an FCC attorney that they use to make sure they stay within the rules. It has nothing to do with any religious affiliation since Angley has nothing to do with the management of that station and is just the financial backer. It is completely secular in it's management and operations. They work closely with The CW (CBS and WB) as their Cleveland affiliate and their national sales office is in New York (Adam Young). WBNX is certainly not the same indy station it started out as. I've visited every station in the Cleveland market including WBNX on business. Keep up that great work you've done on wikipedia. I don't mean this as any kind of rebuke, just a small correction. Besides, if you feel strongly that they are indeed editing out more than most, please provide sourced material in order to add back in the comments.Television Week (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was mainly talking about their early days, when they were tighter than the average bear when it came to censoring.  These days, not so much.
And it wasn't an FCC thing, as damn and hell were OK with them, but TV 55 cut them out anyway.
WBNX had more of a religious/family motif in their early days than they do now.
But there is no doubt that from the time they signed on till the mid 90s (when Fox Kids and the WB fell into their laps), they had a quicker trigger finger than most when it came to censoring.
Vjmlhds 15:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all, unsourced material, opinion, conjecture and one's recollections can be disputed and removed. What I remember and what someone else remembers about a subject can be different. That's why when there is a disagreement about a subject's history the items need removed until facts are sourced properly. As far as what they edited in the past and what they didn't, seems a bit strange to insert your recollections in this article since all broadcast stations over the decades have changed standards. Should we place on every station's article the edit changes they've made and standards practiced since the 1950's? I think not. If you're programming is geared toward families with kids you edit accordingly. Likewise, if your programming is geared toward 18-34 year olds you're editing standards are different. Yes, Vjmlhds, WBNX may have used the censoring standards practiced by other family cable channels such as The Family Channel and Disney when they were focused on that type of audience, but have adapted to the censoring standards expected of them as a network affiliate. But, this is something all stations go through when they change formats and audiences. If we are to mention this then we should provide sourcing and add changes to all stations that have adapted their censoring practices with the change in programming and audience, which would mean every station. Seems a bit much.Television Week (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)