This article introduces the concept of eticising the emic, the process through which emic perspectives are selectively incorporated into etic news frames, rendering them legible only through dominant geopolitical logics. This framework critiques epistemic hierarchies and the coloniality of knowledge in global war reporting. Drawing on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of critical discourse analysis (CDA), informed by ethnographic attention to the relationship between text and production context, the study examines the discursive reframing of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led operation and Israel’s subsequent military response. The analysis examines international news agency coverage through close textual analysis of focal reports from Reuters and Al Jazeera English, representing divergent epistemic frameworks. The findings reveal systematic disparities in naming strategies, agency attribution, and quotation practices. While the dominant etic perspective (Reuters) foregrounds Israeli civilian suffering and frames military retaliation as rational statecraft, Palestinian emic voices are selectively filtered, abstracted, or recontextualised to align with prevailing geopolitical norms. The article demonstrates how localised, experiential knowledge is epistemically managed rather than excluded, and how competing frameworks of epistemic authority shape the production of legitimacy in conflict reporting.
Abu-LughodL (1991) Writing against culture. In: FoxR (ed) Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. School of American Research Press, pp.137–162.
2.
AngI (1996) Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World. Routledge.
3.
BarkhoL (2006) The Arabic Aljazeera vs Britain’s BBC and America’s CNN: Who does journalism right?American Communication Journal8(1): 1–15.
4.
BednarekMCapleH (2017) The Discourse of News Values. Oxford University Press.
5.
BlommaertJ (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BlommaertJ (2006) Ethnography as Counter-Hegemony: Remarks on Epistemology & Method. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, Institute of Education, University of London, London.
7.
ChenSX (2010) From emic to etic: Exporting indigenous constructs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass4(6): 364–378.
8.
ChouliarakiL (2006) The Spectatorship of Suffering. Sage.
9.
CliffordJMarcusG (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press.
10.
de Sousa SantosB (2014) Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Routledge.
11.
FacchinettiR (2021) Analysing the language of news discourse. In: HylandKPaltridgeBWongL (eds) The Bloomsbury Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Bloomsbury Academic, pp.212–229.
12.
FahmySSAl EmadM (2011) Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network’s English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict. International Communication Gazette73(3): 216–232.
13.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Polity.
14.
FaircloughN (1995) Media Discourse. Edward Arnold.
15.
FaircloughN (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.
16.
FaircloughN (2016) A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage, pp.86–108.
17.
GaltungJRugeMH (1965) The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research2(1): 64–90.
18.
HallSCritcherCJeffersonT, et al. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. Macmillan.
19.
HarcupTO’NeillD (2016) What is news?Journalism Studies18(12): 1470–1488.
20.
HarrisM (1976) History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology5: 329–350.
21.
HarrisM (1990a) Emics and etics revisited. In: HeadlandTNPikeKLHarrisM (eds) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, pp.48–61.
22.
HarrisM (1990b) Harris’s reply to pike. In: HeadlandTNPikeKLHarrisM (eds) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, pp.75–83.
23.
HarrisM (2001) Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Altamira Press.
24.
HeadlandTNPikeKLHarrisM (1990) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage.
25.
JägerSMaierF (2016) Analysing discourses and dispositives: A Foucauldian approach to theory and methodology. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage, pp.109–136.
26.
KrzyżanowskiM (2011) Ethnography and critical discourse analysis: towards a problem-oriented research dialogue. Critical Discourse Studies8(4): 231–238.
27.
KrzyżanowskiM (2018) Ethnography and critical discourse studies. In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Routledge, pp.179–193.
28.
KrzyżanowskiM (2020) Discursive shifts and the normalisation of racism: imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right-wing populism. Social Semiotics30(4): 503–527.
29.
LillisT (2008) Ethnography as method, methodology, and deep theorizing. Written Communication25(3): 353–388.
30.
MalinowskiB (1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: OgdenCKRichardsIA (eds) The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Harcourt, Brace & World, pp.296–336.
31.
MathesonD (2005) Media Discourses: Analysing Media Texts. Open University Press.
32.
MorrisMWLeungKAmesD, et al. (1999) Views from inside and outside. Academy of Management Review24(4): 781–796.
33.
PattonMQ (2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage.
34.
PhelanS (2018) News media, ideology and legitimation. In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Routledge, pp.385–398.
35.
PikeKL (1967) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. Mouton.
36.
PikeKL (1990a) On the emics and etics of Pike and Harris. In: HeadlandTNPikeKLHarrisM (eds) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, pp.28–47.
37.
PikeKL (1990b) Pike’s final response. In: HeadlandTNPikeKLHarrisM (eds) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, pp.184–201.
38.
PikeKL (1990c) Pike’s reply to Harris. In: HeadlandTNPikeKLHarrisM (eds) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, pp.62–74.
39.
ResendeVDM (2021) Decolonizing critical discourse studies: For a Latin American perspective. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 26–42.
40.
SapirE (1929) The status of linguistics as a science. Language5(4): 207–214.
41.
TuchmanG (1972) Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of Newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology77(4): 660–679.
42.
van DijkT (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage.
43.
van DijkT (2008) Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press.
44.
van DijkTA (2016) Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage, pp.62–85.
45.
van LeeuwenT (2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Analysis. Oxford University Press.
46.
WiddowsonHG (1998) The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics19(1): 136–151.
47.
WodakR (2021) Critical discourse studies and social critique. In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, 2nd edn. Routledge, pp.59–74.
48.
WodakRMeyerM (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage.
49.
WodakRMeyerM (2016) Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage, pp.1–22.
