There is a widespread misunderstanding of what the fairness doctrine is actually about. It may also be said that it is something that is brought out as an excuse to browbeat either one side or the other.
The myth is that the fairness doctrine means that equal time is given to all sides of the issue. This is not true neither in the text nor the actual application of the rule historically.
In truth the doctrine stated that in order to have a broadcasting license, the station had to present items of public interest and make an effort to present opposing view points and that it was up to the station management what those items were, how it is presented and for how much time. In practice this meant some program late at night and waiting for any person to come off the street and present any view point not connected to the original program. Normal programming was not affected nor any effort was needed to present balanced view points. For example, the doctrine did not mean 1 hour for Liberals and immediately 1 hour for conservatives.
The regulation phrase: "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."
Argument that the fairness doctrine would not be fair from the Heritage Foundation
Why the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair
It would be up to the bureaucrats to determine what is "unbalanced" programming leading to investigations which would make broadcaster shy away from anything controversial. Second, the internet and social media already presents a wide platform to showcase many points of view. Why would there be a need for a police force to monitor broadcasters? How could you make Netflix show balanced movies?
Argument that the fairness doctrine is needed from the Boston Globe
Want to Stop Fake News, Reinstate the fairness doctrine
Not only should the fairness doctrine be reinstated, it already has and should be stronger. This comes from the fallout of the 2016 facebook controversy. There already is a Congressional tide to put stronger regulations on Facebook. Congress should go all the way and regulate all media including TV, radio, and podcasts.
With this background, the answer to your question is that the fairness doctrine as it was in 1983 and before is irrelevant to the polarized political atmosphere of todays world. The large availability of media has contributed to the ability of people to be less homogenized in their thinking. There is a flavor for everyone.