Can "Bread & Circus" be seen as an informal fallacy?

The basic definition from dictionary.com

"something, as extravagant entertainment, offered as an expedient means of pacifying discontent or diverting attention from a source of grievance."

Supposing a government or a people from a certain country keep showcasing rich infurstrucutre, invested technology, while hiding the extreme poverty, poor public facilities, lacking basic human rights and education, are they using an informal fallacy?

Basically they are trying to deceive people to thinking their country is something it's not. Could it be an informal fallacy?

 

It is a form of deceit, but it's not a fallacy if it's not being used in an argument.

If used in an argument (to distract from the point at hand), then as AI Fallacy Master points out, it's a red herring.

"Bread & Circus" could be seen as an example of a Red Herring fallacy, a type of informal fallacy. The Red Herring fallacy is employed when someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that's being discussed, often to avoid dealing with an issue directly. The diversion can seem relevant but is actually off topic. In the case of the government or people showcasing thriving infrastructure and technology while diverting attention from extreme poverty and lacking basic human rights, they are indeed employing this kind of fallacy. However, it's important to note that while a fallacy indicates flawed logic or deception, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the positive things being showcased.