--- title: Red herring url: https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/ description: 'Red herring is a propaganda technique that diverts attention to a side topic. Cases: Truman 1948, Nixon''s Checkers speech, Katyn 1943.' section: Techniques --- ![Illustration: a dossier collage of an intelligence briefing room with case files and behavioral-analysis notes on a chalkboard.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/hero-learn.jpg) Techniques · Rhetorical # Red herring 1. [Home](https://propagandaarchive.org/) 2. [Techniques](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/) 3. Red herring In brief Red herring is a propaganda technique that introduces an attractive side topic so attention leaves the question actually asked; the tell is a topic that may be true and interesting but settles nothing about the original question, unlike a relevant objection that bears directly on it. ![Illustration: a trail of footprints toward a closed door, with a big red fish dragged across the path to pull it off course.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/technique-cards/red-herring.jpg) Illustration, not an archive object On this page - [History and effect of Red herring propaganda](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#history-and-effect-of-red-herring-propaganda) - [How Red herring propaganda works](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#how-red-herring-propaganda-works) - [Why Red herring propaganda works](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#why-red-herring-propaganda-works) - [Red herring propaganda examples across eras and sides](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#red-herring-propaganda-examples-across-eras-and-sides) - [How to spot Red herring propaganda](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#how-to-spot-red-herring-propaganda) - [Where Red herring propaganda ends: edge cases and legitimate persuasion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#where-red-herring-propaganda-ends-edge-cases-and-legitimate-persuasion) - [The science](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/red-herring/#the-science) Related techniques [Whataboutism](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/whataboutism/) [Card stacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/card-stacking/) [Limited hangout](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/limited-hangout/) [Flooding the zone](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/flooding-the-zone/) Also called Diversion, Ignoratio elenchi, Changing the subject Introduce an attractive side topic so attention leaves the question that was actually asked. ## How to spot Red herring: the tell The new topic may be true and interesting, but answering it settles nothing about the original question. ## What Red herring is not A relevant objection that bears directly on the question. On this page ## History and effect of Red herring propaganda The phrase comes from the English journalist William Cobbett. In the 14 February 1807 issue of his *Weekly Political Register* he told how, as a boy, he had dragged a red herring across a hare's trail to throw the hounds off the scent, and used the story to mock London newspapers that had been led by false reports of a French defeat to forget a domestic grievance. Cobbett's account is probably invented; histories of hunting do not record the practice. The metaphor outlived the story. In logic the same fault is old: Aristotle's *ignoratio elenchi*, "ignorance of the refutation", is an argument that proves something other than what is at issue. Explain moreShow less A red herring works on attention, not on belief. It offers the audience something easier to feel or to argue about than the original question, and the original question drops out of view without ever being answered. The topic can be vivid (a dog, a scandal elsewhere, an enemy's crime), which is why it often carries more emotion than the matter it replaces. Lineage: Cobbett (1807) fox-hunting metaphor; informal logic ## How Red herring propaganda works 1. **A question exists.** A charge, a request for an account, or a policy under review. 2. **A substitute is offered.** Something nearby: a related event, a sympathetic detail, an enemy's record, a larger cause. 3. **The substitute gets the airtime.** The speaker, the headline or the next day's argument is about the substitute. Show all 4Show fewer 1. **The original question is never closed.** It is not denied. It is simply not answered, and the audience often does not notice the gap. Explain moreShow less **How it differs from whataboutism.** [Whataboutism](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/whataboutism/) is the narrower move: it answers an accusation with a counter-accusation ("and you are lynching Negroes"). A red herring is any diverting topic. It need not accuse anyone. A sympathetic anecdote, a better story elsewhere or an unrelated emergency can all do the job. Every whataboutist reply is a red herring in function; most red herrings are not whataboutism. Where a case below involves a counter-accusation, it is marked as overlapping. ## Why Red herring propaganda works People answer the question that is easiest to process, not the one that was asked. A vivid, concrete and emotional topic wins attention over an abstract or technical one (see [Availability heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/availability-heuristic/) and [Affect heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/affect-heuristic/)). The side topic also frames what the dispute is "about" ([Framing effect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/framing-effect/)), and audiences who already side with the speaker rarely check that the reply fits the question ([Motivated reasoning](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/motivated-reasoning/)). Because the side topic is often true, the speaker is not lying, and a fact-check of the diversion finds nothing wrong with it. ![Illustration: an empty speaker's podium with a cluster of vintage microphones and rows of empty chairs.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/graphics/empty-podium.jpg) Illustration, not an archive object ## Red herring propaganda examples across eras and sides - **United Kingdom, 1807.** Cobbett's own coinage, above. The diversion he described was a newspaper story about a French defeat that drew readers away from domestic affairs. Here the term names a fault in the press; no government is accused. - **United States, 1948.** At his press conference on 5 August 1948 President Harry Truman was asked whether the Capitol Hill spy scare, then before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, was "a 'red herring' to divert public attention from inflation." He answered, "Yes, I do." The label is the president's charge about the committee's purpose and timing. It is recorded here as his statement and is not scored as correct or incorrect. The phrase became attached to the episode; a 1957 cartoon in the archive lists "Red Herring" among the volumes of his presidency. - **United States, 1952.** On 23 September 1952, Richard Nixon, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, answered reports of an $18,000 fund from supporters in a televised address. He did address the fund, citing an audit and a legal opinion, and said none of it went to his personal use. He also spent time on his family's finances, said his wife Pat had "a respectable Republican cloth coat", and said the family would keep a cocker spaniel called Checkers "regardless of what they say about it". Critics at the time said the personal material replaced the question of propriety: the *Baltimore Sun* wrote that he "did not deal in any way with the underlying question of propriety", and Senator Clinton Anderson said, "I wish he had talked about the 18,000 bucks—not the puppy dog." It is a partial case: he answered the fund charge and added a diversion beside it. Show all 6Show fewer - **Soviet Union, 1983.** After Soviet fighters shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 on 1 September 1983 (269 killed), a TASS statement of 3 September spoke of an "unidentified plane" and "warning shots", left out its destruction, and asked why, if the flight was an ordinary civil one under continuous American observation, no steps had been taken from the American side to end it. The question about the shooting down was met with a question about American behaviour. This overlaps with whataboutism. The Soviet side acknowledged the attack within days. - **Soviet Union, 1986.** On 30 April 1986, four days after the Chernobyl explosion, Radio Moscow's English service gave a short account of the accident and then turned on the American press for "spreading rumors", alleging that it wrote about the accident "100 times more" than about Nevada nuclear tests. On 5-6 May Tass ran items on Hiroshima, Three Mile Island and Bhopal, according to the *Christian Science Monitor*. The accident's scale was the question; the Western press and Western nuclear records were the substitute. This also overlaps with whataboutism. The Soviet government later acknowledged the accident's scale, and U.S. reporting is not exempt from the technique definitions used here. - **Nazi Germany, 1943.** On 13 April 1943 Berlin radio announced the discovery of mass graves at Katyn. The massacre of about 22,000 Polish prisoners was real, and the Soviet Union admitted responsibility only on 13 April 1990. Goebbels's diary entry of 14 April says the discovery was being used "for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style". The Katyn Museum describes the campaign as an effort to split the Allies and to draw international attention away from the German defeat at Stalingrad. This is the case that most clearly fits the tell: the topic was true, grave and attention-holding, and it said nothing about the question it was set against. The museum's account of intent is that of a Polish institution; Goebbels's own words give the propaganda aim, not the diversion aim. ![FBIS Daily Report page carrying the Radio Moscow commentary of 30 April 1986 on the Chernobyl accident and American press reports](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/radio-moscow-chernobyl-us-reports-1986.jpg) ![FBIS Daily Report page translating the TASS statement on the unidentified intruder, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, 1983](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/tass-statement-unidentified-intruder-kal007-1983.jpg) ![Cartoon of Harry Truman handing Uncle Sam a stack of books, one labelled Red Herring](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/never-a-dull-moment-uncle-1957.jpg) Explain moreShow less **Gaps.** No documented case from Chinese, Latin American or African state media has been sourced for this page yet. The definition applies unchanged, and a sourced case will be added when found. *Radio Moscow World Service, commentary by Viktor Ilichev, 30 April 1986, as translated in the FBIS Daily Report of 1 May 1986. U.S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service, via the Internet Archive. Public domain (U.S. government work).* *TASS statement printed in Krasnaya Zvezda on 3 September 1983, as translated in the FBIS Daily Report of 6 September 1983. U.S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service, via the Internet Archive. Public domain (U.S. government work).* *"Never a Dull Moment, Uncle", Jim Berryman, Washington Evening Star, 9 July 1957. National Archives, Records of the U.S. Senate (NAID 5743245). Public domain (U.S. government work). The cartoon lists "Red Herring" among the episodes of Truman's presidency; it does not depict the 1948 exchange.* ## How to spot Red herring propaganda - **Restate the question.** Write down what was asked, then check whether the reply answers it. If it does not, ask what the reply is about instead. - **Check if the new topic is relevant.** A relevant topic changes the answer to the original question. A red herring leaves that answer where it was. - **Notice who benefits from the change of subject.** The question is usually the one the speaker least wants asked. Show all 5Show fewer - **Track what is missing.** A statement that omits the central event (the shooting down, the death toll) and fills the space with context is a signal. - **Do not reject the side topic because it diverts.** Katyn was real. The test is whether it answers the question, not whether it is true. ## Where Red herring propaganda ends: edge cases and legitimate persuasion A relevant objection is not a red herring. A relevant objection is not a red herring. If a witness's earlier perjury is raised when she testifies, or an official's conflict of interest when his audit is cited, the objection bears on the question. Context that a reasonable listener needs, such as comparing a death toll with a baseline, is not diversion either. Speakers also change the subject for honest reasons: a question may contain a false premise, or a different issue may be more urgent. The difference is whether the speaker says what is being set aside and why. The label itself can be misused. Calling an opponent's point a red herring is a common way to avoid answering it, and Truman's use in 1948 was a charge by one party against another. Check the claim of diversion against the question as asked, not against the accuser's account of it. ### Sources - Michael Quinion, "Red herring", *World Wide Words*, on Cobbett's *Weekly Political Register* of 14 February 1807: [worldwidewords.org/herring.html](https://worldwidewords.org/herring.html). - Harry S. Truman, "The President's News Conference", 5 August 1948, The American Presidency Project, UC Santa Barbara: [presidency.ucsb.edu/node/232727](https://presidency.ucsb.edu/node/232727). - Richard Nixon, "Checkers" speech, 23 September 1952, Miller Center, University of Virginia: [millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/4638](https://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/4638); reactions of the *Baltimore Sun* and Sen. Clinton Anderson as summarised in "Checkers speech", Wikipedia: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech). - TASS statement, *Krasnaya Zvezda*, 3 September 1983, in FBIS Daily Report, Soviet Union, 6 September 1983 (FBIS-SOV-83-173): [archive.org/details/micro_IA1176914_0312](https://archive.org/details/micro_IA1176914_0312). - Viktor Ilichev, Radio Moscow World Service, 30 April 1986, in FBIS Daily Report, Soviet Union, 1 May 1986 (FBIS-SOV-86-084): [archive.org/details/micro_IA1176914_1080](https://archive.org/details/micro_IA1176914_1080). - Gary Thatcher, "Soviets: more information on Chernobyl. But they blast West's record in nuclear safety", *The Christian Science Monitor*, 6 May 1986: [csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1986/0506/ocher.html](https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1986/0506/ocher.html). - "Katyn massacre", Wikipedia, for the 13 April 1943 Berlin radio announcement, Goebbels's diary entry of 14 April 1943 and the Soviet statement of 13 April 1990: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre). - "Propaganda over the graves: the 80th anniversary of the discovery of the mass graves at Katyn", Katyn Museum, Warsaw: [muzeumkatynskie.pl](https://muzeumkatynskie.pl/en/propaganda-over-the-graves-the-80th-anniversary-of-the-discovery-of-the-mass-graves-at-katyn/). *Sourcing note (7 October 2026): Truman, Nixon (Miller Center), Cobbett (World Wide Words), the Chernobyl CSM report and the Katyn Museum page were read directly. The Goebbels diary fragment (14 April 1943) and the Baltimore Sun (Washington Post, 25 September 1952) and Anderson (New York Times, 24 September 1952) quotations match Wikipedia, which cites those papers; the primary texts were not opened.* Sources and further reading ## The science Research on the psychology this technique relies on, from the Learn library: Research on the psychology this technique relies on, from the [Learn](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/) library: - [Availability heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/availability-heuristic/) — Availability heuristic - [Affect heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/affect-heuristic/) — Affect heuristic - [Framing effect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/framing-effect/) — Framing effect - [Motivated reasoning](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/motivated-reasoning/) — Motivated reasoning ## Red herring propaganda examples in the collection [Red herring in the collection](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/technique/red-herring/) - [TASS statement on the 'unidentified intruder' (Korean Air Lines Flight 007), FBIS Daily Report, 6 September 1983](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/tass-statement-unidentified-intruder-kal007-1983/) (Soviet Union · Sep 6, 1983 · Card stacking, Whataboutism, Red herring, Gaslighting). Content note: Soviet state-agency statement on a civilian airliner shot down with 269 people aboard; the text calls the flight a 'pre-planned act' and omits its destruction. - [Radio Moscow World Service on the Chernobyl accident and U.S. reports, FBIS Daily Report, 1 May 1986](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/radio-moscow-chernobyl-us-reports-1986/) (Soviet Union · May 1, 1986 · Limited hangout, Whataboutism, Red herring, Gaslighting). Content note: Soviet radio commentary on the Chernobyl disaster that reports two deaths and attributes Western coverage to an 'order'; later assessments recorded far larger casualties. ## Propaganda techniques related to Red herring [Whataboutism](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/whataboutism/) [Card stacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/card-stacking/) [Limited hangout](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/limited-hangout/) [Flooding the zone](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/flooding-the-zone/)