Should the ABC's RN Breakfast be called to account for acting against the public interest?

The ABC's RN Breakfast spent years conducting a Carbon Tax Debate; but did anybody ever understand it? The ABC describes RN Breakfast as: "The show the nation’s political class wakes up to. Start each day with comprehensive coverage and analysis of national and international events, and interviews with the leaders and thinkers that matter." Fran Kelly was named by Sydney Morning Herald's the (Sydney) magazine as one of Sydney’s 100 most influential people of 2011. Kelly is described by the Australian electronic magazine Crikey as “one of the most influential media players in the country.” Ref: Wikipedia: "Radio National Breakfast, while lower in ratings than most other state and local radio programmes, has, as a national programme, one of the highest listener numbers for any early morning program in Australia. In particular it is regarded as the programme which federal Australian politicians listen to, particularly given its focus on national politics." Some Questions: From 2008 through to the end of 2013, did RN Breakfast ever raise the issue of Australia's extreme population growth in public policy discussion, in relation to its impact on emissions growth that far exceeded any proposed emissions reduction measures, including the Carbon Tax? In the lead up to the 2010 Federal Election, did RN Breakfast ever question the Greens to establish why they fully supported Australia's extreme population growth even though they should have known that it was driving emissions growth far faster than their proposed Carbon Tax could reduce those emissions in the short to medium term? Did this conceal the duplicity of the Greens and indirectly improve support for the Greens in the 2010 Federal Election? Wasn't the whole point about climate change one of urgency? So why ignore the primary driver of emissions growth as if it was irrelevant to the Emissions Management Debate? Was RN Breakfast, throughout the period from 2008 to 2013, biased in its coverage of the ABC-branded Carbon Tax Debate? The good RN Breakfast does pales into insignificance if the magnitude of its misconduct outweighs the good. Is this a fair assessment of RN Breakfast's influence on the creation of a hung parliament in 2010 and the passing of Carbon Tax legislation in 2011? Would impartial coverage of the duplicity of the Greens and the truth about emissions growth have made both the above outcomes less likely? Would it have been in the public interest?