Manfred Güllner, founder of Forsa, did not entirely reject the criticisms aimed at polling institute data, though he selectively applied the rebuke to his own company. Güllner told the dts Nachrichtenagentur in Berlin on Thursday that the government spokesperson’s assertion that “serious institutes” operate without fault was unjustified. Instead, he argued that the government spokesperson should be encouraging the Chancellor to seriously consider the profound dissatisfaction experienced by the general public regarding his performance so far.
Despite this, Güllner conceded that the government spokesperson’s criticism was warranted when applied to “black sheep” in the market of opinion researchers whose data often fails to match reality, as well as to the uncritical and loud dissemination of such distorted figures in certain media outlets. Güllner did not name these institutions, but it is known that he has been involved in lengthy legal disputes with a smaller, online-only polling firm over the years.
The controversy began when Government Spokesperson Stefan Kornelius, speaking to journalists in Berlin, questioned the methodology of many polls, asking how they were conducted “in a proper and serious manner.” He warned, “None of these institutes that release polls at this frequency has the financial resources to carry out such surveys. So perhaps we should all handle this instrument very cautiously.” His concern extended beyond just the number of people surveyed.
The immediate trigger for the debate was a Forsa poll released that week, which showed the approval rating for Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) had fallen to a new record low of ten percent. Kornelius had responded by stating that poll figures are merely “snapshots” and should not “irritate” the Chancellor on his path of reforms.
Güllner partially endorsed this statement concerning data context. He told the dts Nachrichtenagentur that politicians should not primarily allow public opinion to dictate their decisions, but rather base them on substantive necessities. However, he also insisted that politics should not ignore the insights derived from these surveys. After all, he maintained, the results from serious institutes are not invented by researchers; rather, they reflect what the surveyed public entrusts to these institutions.
