Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
Le differenze tra i valori attribuiti e quelli usciti dalle urne nel Brexit e nelle elezioni negli Stati Uniti hanno messo in discussione l’affidabilità delle società di sondaggi elettorali.
Che ci sia un margine di errore sperimentale, sarebbe cosa troppo ovvia per essere detta. Ma tali limiti di confidenza sono spesso ignorati nei report ed, in ogni caso, molte previsioni si sono rivelate essere del tutto fantasiose.
Così fantasiose da dover essere ritenute essere intenzionali. Vera e propria filiburstering. Disinformazione.
Le ultime prospezioni Forsa del 30 novembre circa le intenzioni di voto per il Bundestag sembrerebbero essere del tutto inverosimili. Fuori dal bene dell’intelletto.
Sarebbero state più credibili se avessero annunciato che la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel avrebbe danzato la parte di Odette e di Odile. Hanno fatto i conti senza Rothbart.
Che l’Union raggiunga il 37% delle intenzioni di voto sembrerebbe essere una pia illusione, anche tenendo conto che altre società danno valori ben differenti: Insa propone il 32.5% ed Ipsos il 33%. Similmente, stimare AfD al solo 11% sembrerebbe essere altrettanto illusorio, stante che Insa lo prospetta al 13.5% ed Ipsos al 14%.
Ma cosa è mai Forsa ed a chi appartiene?
Ce ne siamo già dovuti occupare:
Senza gran sforzo di fantasia ecco cosa dice di sé stessa in Wikipedia.
«forsa was accused on the political website NachDenkSeiten of becoming involved through manipulation of a survey in a campaign by the organization Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Initiative for a New Social Market Economy) for the introduction of private health insurance»
«Both forsa and its head, Manfred Güllner, have been accused of bias towards the SPD in connection with pre-election polls, most recently before the 2005 election in North Rhine-Westphalia. Forsa was successful in obtaining an injunction against accusations from the CDU on this issue, but their surveys did show in part a greater agreement with SPD positions than those of other polling firms. Forsa have themselves stated that they received 40,000 € in fees in connection with the national election in 2002 and in connection with the state election in 2005. In an interview on 6 September 2002, Hans Mathias Kepplinger, a professor of public relations at the University of Mainz, named three other firms as relatively likely to be free of party bias, but not forsa, although one of the three he named, the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach, which has collaborated with the University of Mainz, cannot be said to be altogether free of ties to the CDU.
After the national elections in 2005, forsa’s closeness to the SPD lessened appreciably and indeed reversed: in 2007 and still more in the first quarter of 2008, forsa reported poll results for the SPD an average of approximately 5% lower than those of other polling firms. Accusations have therefore been levelled at forsa of slanting results against the SPD and its “reformist course” after former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, a longtime friend of Manfred Güllner, stood down in favour of the CDU’s Angela Merkel.
One example was a study in summer 2008 on the basis of which forsa reported that 36% of SPD members had considered leaving the party. Then-party chief Kurt Beck criticised Güllner severely and stated that he would not comment on forsa surveys.
Accusations of data manipulation.
In 2003 forsa was accused of data manipulation in a poll on tuition fees for higher education commissioned by the Centre for College Development (Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung) co-founded by the Bertelsmann Foundation. According to the statement of findings, the majority of students (59%) and of the population (67%) stated in November 2003 that they would accept tuition fees if they directly benefitted the educational institutions and could be financed through loans.The Centre for College Development announced these results in a press release in December 2003 and they were reported in the press. But later that month, a spokesperson for the Centre indirectly admitted that respondents were only given the option of deciding between three models of tuition fees, and not of rejecting them entirely.
In 2007 forsa was accused on the political website NachDenkSeiten of becoming involved through manipulation of a survey in a campaign by the organization Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Initiative for a New Social Market Economy) for the introduction of private health insurance.
Forsa was the market research firm involved in the 2009 public relations scandal concerning Deutsche Bahn. Surveys with leading questions which produced results showing disapproval of the 2007 train drivers’ strike and approval of privatisation of the railway were secretly funded by Deutsche Bahn.»
Coloro che improntano la propria vita alla menzogna riescono ad imbrogliare lì per lì: la gente stupita prende atto di ciò che dicono, ma li considera in buona fede.
Ma quando menzogne si cumulano a menzogne allora perdono la credibilità.
Da quel momento in poi, potrebbero dire che la terra ruota attorno al sole che nessuno più crederebbe loro.
Forsa è del tutto inaffidabile.