What part of "Use the government to dictate what the people and the press can and cannot say." sounds like a good idea to these people?
Well, the site you link describes it as
a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
which is a rather different thing.
Was it the fairness doctrine that allowed for McCarthy's famous ranting response to the Edward R. Murrow report?
Providing opposing viewpoints on controversial issues sounds like a good thing to me—but I'm doubtful it's at all necessary to make it a legal requirement. Don't news sources already do it? Shows like Crossfire and whatnot, and the opposite-party response to the State of the Union addresses. Those already get airtime. And newspapers often publish conflicting editorials.
Also, how do you define "controversial"? If just one person disagrees, does that make it controversial? Seems like a can of worms.
Opposing viewpoints on issues are already widely and freely available, just not necessarily in the exact same news sources (though they often are).