I personally think cable news spends too much time on opposing points of view already, giving airtime to cranks. In America, we have a skewed view of what is controversial. The fairness doctrine would seem to require that stations give some time to creationists when evolution is discussed (or young earth creationists, whenever geological processes are discussed), antivaccers when vaccines are discussed, AGW-deniers when climate change is presented. All of which lends some semblance of credibility to them. How do you distinguish actual controversies from the ones that vocal minorities find controversial? What distinguishes the historical debates over whether we ever landed on the moon (or whther 9/11 was a government conspiracy), from the debate over whether Obama's policies improved the economy in a way that would allow the FCC, or whichever government agency enforces the fairness doctrine, to make distinctions in a non-arbitrary manner? Surely it can't be that we have to present the "other side" if anyone believes an issue is controversial. What about issues that are nor binary? I am not a Christian, but neither are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, etc...so there is more than one viewpoint in opposition to Christianity (and more than one kind of Christianity, for that matter). I have difficulty believing that the fairness doctrine could be applied in a way that would be even handed, and that my view of how well it was being applied would depend on a great number of factors. The best we could do with it, in my view is to only apply it in extreme cases, far beyond the level of bias beyond what comes from Fox News or MSNBC (as they do make half hearted efforts to present "contrasting viewpoints" without giving "equal time".