This rhetorical technique involves diverting attention from the main issue by introducing information that is superficially related but ultimately irrelevant. The term originates from a training tactic for hunting dogs, where a smoked herring was dragged across a trail to confuse the scent. In debates and discussions, the red herring serves as a diversion, leading the audience away from the core argument without them realizing the shift.
Red herrings exploit the audience’s tendency to accept seemingly relevant topics as meaningful without scrutinizing their actual connection to the core issue. When a new topic appears tied to the discussion, it can subtly replace the original issue without raising immediate suspicion. This technique takes advantage of cognitive misdirection, where the audience is led to prioritize the introduced topic over the core argument.
Additionally, red herrings give speakers control over the narrative. By steering the discussion to a topic that feels closely related enough, the speaker avoids directly addressing difficult questions or criticisms. This misdirection is effective because the audience often perceives the shift as part of the natural flow of conversation rather than a deliberate attempt to deflect.
A red herring breaks the trail of focus by presenting a topic that appears connected to the main issue but fails to engage with it substantively. For example, when asked about allegations of past sexist remarks toward women in the workplace, a speaker might respond by highlighting how many women he has hired for executive positions in the past year. While this response might seem relevant, hiring women for executive positions does not address whether the speaker is still engaging in sexist behavior toward women in the workplace. One does not necessarily exclude the other.
This subtle shift works as a distraction because the audience may not immediately recognize the disconnect. It not only distracts from the main issue but can also make critics appear nitpicky if they try to refocus the discussion.
Calling out a red herring can be difficult because the introduced topic often appears tied to the issue or seems reasonable at first glance. Critics must carefully explain why the new focus is irrelevant, which can make them seem overly technical or dismissive.
The effectiveness of red herrings is further enhanced by plausible deniability. If challenged, the speaker can argue that their response is loosely tied to the broader topic, putting critics in the position of justifying why the connection is insufficient.
To identify a red herring, evaluate whether the introduced topic actually addresses the main issue or merely seems associated with it. Red herrings often rely on slight shifts in focus that make the audience think a question is being answered when it isn’t.
Ask yourself: Does the response address the main issue, or does it substitute a topic that only appears relevant but fails to resolve the original question?
