The Art of Changing the Subject Without You Noticing

You ask a straightforward question:
“Why did the project go over budget?”

The response:
“Well, what we should really be talking about is how hard the team has been working and how much progress we’ve made.”

That may sound relevant—but it doesn’t actually answer the question.

Welcome to the red herring fallacy, where attention is quietly diverted from the real issue to something else—often something easier, safer, or more emotionally appealing. Its formal Latin name is “ignoratio elenchi,” which means “ignorance of the issue” or “irrelevant conclusion.”

Technically, “red herring” isn’t technically a formal fallacy, but a rhetorical trick, a distraction. Like the magician who uses misdirection to make the audience look away at a critical moment, the red herring tempts the listener to focus on something else and lose the original focus.

What Is a Red Herring?

A red herring occurs when someone introduces irrelevant information to distract from the topic at hand.

Instead of addressing the original argument or question, they shift the conversation to something else that may seem related—but isn’t actually the point.

Instead of:

“Here’s why the budget increased…”

You get:

“Let’s focus on the positive outcomes.”

The original issue disappears, replaced by a different conversation.

Why It Works

Red herrings are effective because they don’t feel like avoidance.

The new topic is often:

  • Emotionally engaging
  • Loosely connected
  • Easier to defend

Most listeners don’t stop to ask, “Wait—did that actually answer the question?” The conversation simply moves on.

It’s like a magician’s trick: misdirect attention, and the audience won’t notice what’s been skipped.

A Real-World Example (and Why It’s So Entertaining)

A classic example comes from political interviews.

In one widely discussed exchange, a journalist asked a politician about allegations of financial misconduct. Instead of addressing the specifics, the politician responded with something like:

“What the American people really care about is jobs, security, and the future of this country.”

It sounds strong. Patriotic. Relevant.

But it doesn’t answer the question.

The original issue—financial misconduct—has been replaced with a broader, more comfortable topic. The audience is nudged to think about priorities instead of accountability.

It’s entertaining because once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The pivot is often smooth, confident, and delivered as if it were the answer.

And in many cases, it works.

Common Forms of Red Herring

You’ll find this fallacy in many settings:

  • Politics
    Question about ethics → response about national pride
  • Corporate Communication
    Question about layoffs → response about long-term strategy
  • Media Debates
    Question about evidence → response about personal values
  • Everyday Conversations
    Question about a mistake → response about intentions

Each one redirects attention away from the original issue.

What Aboutism

“What Aboutism,” which is a specific type of red herring, is a favorite recent technique of many politicians and influencers, is very common. When it shifts focus to another person, it is a variation of tu quoque (Latin: “you also”) argument, diverting attention from the original criticism of a person to someone else.

Where the name comes from

  • The Literal Fish: A “red herring” is a herring that has been strongly cured in brine or heavily smoked, which gives it a pungent odor and a reddish color.
  • The Hunting Technique: Historically, these smelly fish were dragged across a trail to train hunting dogs to stay focused on a scent or to test their tracking abilities. If a dog was distracted by the fish’s odor, it was being led astray, or “following a red herring”.
  • Popularization of the Idiom: While the fish has existed for centuries, the idiom is often attributed to British journalist William Cobbett in 1807. He used it to describe how newspapers used false, sensational stories about Napoleon’s defeat to mislead the public, much like a fish distracts a hound from its true trail.

Today, the term is used in literature and daily conversation to describe any information intended to mislead or distract from the real issue

Why It’s Dangerous

Red herrings prevent real issues from being addressed.

When conversations are constantly redirected:

  • Accountability is avoided
  • Problems remain unresolved
  • Discussions become less about truth and more about control

It rewards skillful distraction over honest engagement.

How to Spot (and Respond)

The key is to stay anchored to the original question.

Ask yourself:

  • Did that actually answer the question?
  • What issue was I supposed to be evaluating?
  • Has the topic changed without explanation?

If you notice a red herring, bring the conversation back:

“That’s interesting, but it doesn’t address the original question. Can you respond to that directly?”

Calmly restating the issue can cut through the distraction.

The Bottom Line

The red herring fallacy doesn’t argue—it diverts.

It replaces one conversation with another, hoping you won’t notice the switch.

But once you learn to track the original question, the trick loses its power.

Because the most important part of any discussion…
isn’t where it goes—it’s whether it ever answered where it started.