The biggest detail I think you aren't seeing is that the fairness doctrine made 'Opinion Pieces' on air much less attractive as a host, as a producer, etc. So generally they just WOULDN'T present anything that wasn't just news unless it was a political debate and the two sided conversation would be natural.

The main reason it's overrated is that it only applied to broadcast networks. It wouldn't do anything to hold Fox News accountable, since Fox News is on cable.

It might have helped with the Sinclair style bullshit in local news but they've lost a huge amount influence to the internet anyway.

Exactly.

And who determines whether it's "news" or not when it's something seen as controversial? Oh, the corporations that own the channels/shows? What could go wrong?

Thats why you require due impartiality instead of equal time.

Yeah, it would make it so you had to legally put a climate change denier on.

So you do a segment that says "here's a scientist with noting to gain from deceiving you and, by legally required contrast, a climate change denying corporate shill whose profit motive in lying to you is jarringly obvious."

You still have the lunatic there to rile up the audience, but you don't ONLY have the audience riling lunatic on.