TIME Media

Stop Pretending Nothing Happens in August

President Richard Nixon Resignation At White House In Washington On August 9Th 1974
President Richard Nixon Resignation at White House in Washington on August 9th 1974. Keystone-France—Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

The month of beach vacations is also when World War I broke out, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The headlines these days all seem to demand exclamation marks. Iraq is teetering on the brink! Russian troops are massing on the Ukrainian border! Gaza lies in ruins! World’s worst Ebola epidemic afflicts Africa!

Oh, and it is also National Goat Cheese Month. Welcome to another quiet and peaceful August.

Yeah, right. One of the puzzles of summer is why so many of us persist in pretending that August is a month when nothing happens, when we can step back, tune out, take a break, and recharge. Europeans even think they are entitled to take the entire month off.

Perhaps there’s something about late summer, a couple months gone since school let out in June, that makes us forget our history. This year, August is full of reminders. We’re commemorating the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s resignation and the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I.

Bellicose August also brought the Gulf of Tonkin incident that triggered our involvement in Vietnam, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the failed coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in 1939 that enabled Hitler to invade Poland on September 1, and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 and ensuing Japanese surrender. Hurricane Katrina also occurred in August, but let’s leave Mother Nature out of it.

There’s a melancholic quality to August, a month nearly synonymous with “waning days of summer.” Less acknowledged in our cultural vernacular is the extent to which the “waning” feeling is as much about the end of another year as it is about the end of summer.

Sure, we sing “Auld Lang Syne,” kiss under the mistletoe, and wish each other a “Happy New Year” when December turns to January. But who among us doesn’t feel that the real reset moment each year, the new beginning, comes in September, the day after Labor Day? The fall is when we start school and football season and the U.S. government fiscal year, and when we get serious, if we ever do, about our work.

August, then, is about the waning not only of summer, but also of each passing year, and lost possibilities. It is about the waning of life, even. There is a grasping, desperate quality to many of the historical events that took place in August—hence the resonance of the title of Barbara W. Tuchman’s historical bestseller about the outset of World War I, The Guns of August. It’s quite fashionable to study the sequence of events that led to the so-called “Great War,” which in retrospect appear like dominoes falling as if on a predetermined course. The rest of the war is far less fashionable to read about, as it proves too muddled a narrative. Best to focus on the August beginning, and how it ended all that came before.

Mischief conspires with melancholia in August, the notion that mice can play while the cat’s vacationing. It’s not clear whether Saddam Hussein thought he would get away with taking over Kuwait if he did so while the American president was summering in Maine, or whether that president’s son, when he was in office a decade later, would have taken warnings of an airborne al Qaeda plot more seriously had he been briefed about them at some time and place other than August at his Texas ranch.

August and the waning days of summer (and of the year, I insist) is when we let our guards down, creating an opening for those with an agenda, be it the invasion of Poland or Kuwait, or the shorting of the pound (George Soros famously bet against the British currency in August 1992, and won big). So keep your eye on colleagues who seem especially busy and eager to stick around the office this month. Who knows what they’re up to?

Financial markets are notoriously slow in August, the month of lowest trading volumes, when bankers follow their clients to the beach. But “slow” can be a deceptive term in business as in life, given that lower volume and less liquidity in a market can make it more volatile, and more susceptible to speculation. If you buy or sell 1,000 shares of a company, you are far more likely to influence that stock price on a day when only 5,000 shares trade hands than on a day when 100,000 shares trade hands.

That same dynamic applies to anyone seeking to influence the outcome of any event: your influence increases the fewer people are engaged. Which is what makes this such a dodgy month, and the current news headlines so ominous.

And now, I’m off to the beach for a week. It’s August, after all.

Andres Martinez is editorial director of Zocalo Public Square, for which he writes the Trade Winds column. This piece originally appeared at Zocalo Public Square.

TIME Television

Chuck Todd to Take Over Meet the Press

MSNBC Anchors - Season 2014
Chuck Todd, who will leave MSNBC's Daily Rundown to take over Meet the Press Charles Ommanney/MSNBC

A big change? It depends whether you think the show's big problem was David Gregory or Meet the Press itself.

On Thursday, NBC announced a major transition in its Sunday-morning news strategy: from a guy without facial hair to a guy with facial hair. As had been rumored for weeks, NBC is ditching David Gregory as host of Meet the Press, which he has moderated since 2008, in favor of White House correspondent Chuck Todd.

Todd will give up the White House post, as well as his MSNBC show Daily Rundown, which may insulate him from charges of association with MSNBC’s left-leaning hosts. Gregory, who has taken blame for a decline in ratings, will leave the network altogether–indeed, he was all but dropped through a trap door, departing immediately in favor of Todd, who takes over September 7.

How big a deal this is to you depends in part on how big a deal the Sunday shows remain to you. (Disclosure: I watch television for a living, am deeply into news, politics and government, and I watch them only when forced.) One explanation for NBC’s ratings drop was Gregory’s less-than-energetic style; the chipper, data-driven Todd should bring a change in tone, and NBC says it plans to make to-be-determined changes under Todd.

But I don’t think Gregory was ever MTP‘s real problem. And there’s no sign, with this hire, that the show intends to change its inside-Washington focus on who’s up and who’s down and how it all affects an election cycle that never ends.

Todd, who remains NBC’s political director, is sharp, eager and routinely praised as a “politics junkie.” But it’s worth considering that that phrase does not mean the same thing as “policy junkie.” And in the world of Sunday-morning TV, the former is the kind of junkie you want to be if you want to get ahead: you need to be mainlining poll results and campaign positioning and 2016 speculation–the stuff of who gets in power and how, not of why anyone would want them to be there and what works and doesn’t in government. The latter affects all Americans, a lot, and the Sunday shows are now generally built on the assumption that they don’t care about it.

All of which to say is, Chuck Todd will probably be just fine, maybe even very good, as host of Meet the Press. He’s engaged, quick-witted and always seems to have done his homework plus the extra credit. When you want to break down the currents and political map of an election, Todd’s one of your best guys. But Meet the Press, it seems, will continues to be what Meet the Press has become: rounds of interviews with leaders the major parties have offered up (i.e., John McCain), framed as a discussion of who won and lost the week.

If you think the main problem with Meet the Press was David Gregory, this is probably a good change for you. But if you think the problem with Meet the Press–and the other Sunday shows–is themselves, you’ll have to wait and see if MTP shows any signs of breaking out of permanent campaign mode.

TIME Media

It’s Now Guns Vs. Cameras in Ferguson

The arrests and tear-gassing of journalists in an American city is an outrage—in part because everyone is the media now.

+ READ ARTICLE

“Stop videotaping!”

It’s about the first thing you hear in the handheld video Washington Post journalist Wesley Lowery took of his being arrested by police in Ferguson, Mo., Wednesday night, along with Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post, for “trespassing”—in an open McDonald’s—while covering the unrest after the shooting death by police of Michael Brown. The two journalists were detained, roughed up and held in a cell before being released later the same night. (You can read Lowery’s account of the arrest here, and Reilly’s here.) Their only evident provocation: doing their work at Mickey D’s and using the wi-fi.

Lowery and Reilly were obviously not the only people taken into custody that night. Others in the streets were tear-gassed and hit by rubber bullets as police met the protesters, outfitted in SWAT gear and accompanied by snipers on armored vehicles. Nor were they they the only journalists targeted: here you can see footage of an Al Jazeera America crew fleeing their video equipment after getting hit with tear gas, after which a SWAT vehicle pulls up and police take down the camera and lights.

A SWAT team. To take out cameras. In the United States of America. Because you know how dangerous it is when people start pointing those things around.

I want to be careful about this, because I don’t want to give the impression that somehow it only matters when it’s reporters who get arrested or hurt. You can say what you want about the implications of there being what amounts to a war zone in an American city after a police shooting–but reporters do cover dangerous places like war zones, and they expose themselves to risk. So to be clear, I’m not saying that journalists are somehow sacrosanct, or that an injury to a law-abiding reporter matters more than an injury to a law-abiding regular citizen.

But it does matter.

It matters, both morally and practically, that police took two journalists into custody for, essentially, covering the police. It matters morally because having media at a confrontation like this is a way of bringing the world in. When journalists are forced out of the scene, you’re cut out of the picture. And when there isn’t an observer with the power to get word out, widely and quickly, then bad actors—whoever they are—can act in secret.

It also matters practically because, being honest, it draws media attention. Journalists do pay more attention to stories that involve other journalists, which is the sort of thing that can bring the fiasco unfolding here to the next level of coverage. (Earlier in the week, for instance, Ferguson was struggling for newshole space with the death of Robin Williams–and, yes, I know I’m speaking from a magazine that put Williams on its cover this week.)

And if law enforcement wants to retain some level of trust as the story gets framed, this is not a great way to do it. If police in Missouri are willing to do this to people with a media platform, how, it’s reasonable to ask, will they treat someone who doesn’t? Not to mention that attacks on the press make law enforcement look not only sinister but inept. Just as, in Washington political journalism, pundits use the way a candidate handles media as a measure of a campaign’s competence, going to war against reporters shows that (at best) things are not being thought through here.

And it matters because it wasn’t just Lowery who was ordered, “Stop videotaping!” Multiple reports came in Wednesday night of riot police telling the media and the crowd in general not to photograph or video-record. (It is in fact, the belief of some officers to the contrary, 100% legal to photograph the police.) Because here’s the thing: accredited journalists are not the only media on scene in Ferguson, or anywhere. Smartphones make everyone a camera crew, and social media gives everyone a platform, if not an equal one. Here in New York City, it was a bystander who recorded Eric Garner’s fatal chokehold arrest. Police who crack down on journalists are by extension cracking down on anyone who might use a camera in a way they don’t like–which nowadays, is almost all of us.

The arrests of journalists is not an outrage because journalists deserve special outrage. It’s an outrage because, now, we are all the media.

Keep videotaping.

 

TIME Crime

2 Journalists Arrested, Detained in Ferguson, Mo., While Covering Protests

They were covering protests in the Missouri town that have been raging in the wake of the deadly shooting of 18-year-old Mike Brown

Updated August 14 at 1:00 a.m. ET

Two journalists said they were arrested and detained Wednesday in Ferguson, Mo., while covering protests that have been raging in the wake of the deadly police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown last week.

Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post tweeted they were arrested while doing reporting at a McDonald’s restaurant in Ferguson. “Police came into McD where me and @ryanjreilly working,” Lowery tweeted. “Try to kick everyone out.”

Reilly later tweeted that they were arrested for “not packing their bags quick enough” at the McDonald’s. The two journalists have been covering the aftermath of the shooting of the unarmed teen in Ferguson, which has sparked protests in the suburban St. Louis town. Lowery said on the Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday that the McDonald’s was located near “ground zero” of protests that have drawn national media attention.

In a first-hand account of his own arrest published in the Washington Post late Wednesday night, Lowery offered a detailed account of the arrest, as well as video of a police officer telling him to stop filming. Although he did not resist the officers taking him into custody, Lowery writes, they slammed him into a soda machine.

His account of the arrest includes this exchange:

“I hope you’re happy with yourself,” one officer told me. And I responded: “This story’s going to get out there. It’s going to be on the front page of The Washington Post tomorrow.”

And he said, “Yeah, well, you’re going to be in my jail cell tonight.”

A strong police force greeted protesters on Wednesday—Huffington Post‘s Reilly tweeted images of officers with assault weapons, wearing helmets, and peering from out of armored vehicles.

Lowery said police detained the two, though they were later released without charges.

Calls to the St. Louis County Police Department to confirm the arrests were not immediately returned.

TIME Media

Genius, Mensch, Sad Clown: Dissecting What Robin Williams Really Meant to People

Robin Williams
Peter Hapak for TIME

The words used to describe the icon have a rich history that makes them even more appropriate than people realize

The world has lost a lot this week: a comedic genius, a real mensch, a sad clown. Remembrances of actor and comedian Robin Williams, who was found dead on Monday, have repeatedly summed him up with the same few words.

Some readers were learning the terms that cycled and recycled through the news. After Steve Martin tweeted his reaction to Williams’ death—“I could not be more stunned by the loss of Robin Williams, mensch, great talent, acting partner, genuine soul.”—mensch became the fifth most searched word on Google.

But even those who didn’t have to thumb through their dictionaries may be surprised to learn the history behind these suddenly ubiquitous words, much of which makes them even more appropriate for the sad task they’ve had this week.

“Robin Williams, an Improvisational Genius, Forever Present in the Moment”

— New York Times headline on August 11, 2014

genius (n.)

In the Middle Ages, a genius was a supernatural being. In classic Latin, the word referred to the male spirit living in the head of a family, which was then passed into everyone else through him. And in the Middle Ages, genius came to describe an attendant spirit that was assigned to each person at birth, and sometimes two mutually opposed spirits (you know, the good genius and the evil genius). This same root gave rise to the word genie, like the lamp-dwelling one Williams’ voiced in Aladdin, who could be good or evil depending on who his master was.

Because a genius was to accompany people through life, fulfilling their fortunes and then escorting them off the mortal coil, the word came to refer to the essential character of someone and their natural aptitudes for things. And so writers using it now to refer to Williams’ singular talents are also, likely unknowingly, connoting a battle of the selves that geniuses have represented throughout history.

I could not be more stunned by the loss of Robin Williams, mensch, great talent, acting partner, genuine soul.

— Steve Martin (@SteveMartinToGo) August 11, 2014

mensch (n.)

This Yiddish word is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a person of integrity who is morally just. But there is more to the word’s aura than that. Yiddish scholars could argue endlessly about the precise nuances, but mensch is often used to describe someone who is not only admirable but who should be emulated, a willing mentor who thinks beyond themselves in a way that shows strong character, not passivity.

Writer H.L. Mencken described a mensch this way: “an upright, honorable, decent person” and “someone of consequence.” Others argue that a mensch must be approachable and that a true mensch would never call himself a mensch, probably because he’s too busy putting the community above himself.

Like many Yiddish words, this one has been adopted into the American vernacular in a way that is evolving and richly imprecise. But most qualities assigned to the word, however Steve Martin meant it, have been reflected in other words people have recently used to describe what Williams’ was like as a family member and neighbor. The local comedy club in Mill Valley, Calif., where Williams could often be found backstage encouraging young comedians, canceled their weekly comedy night for the first time in 10 years this Tuesday, out of respect for their mensch.

The word’s origins are related to those of mannish. No, not the mannish we use now to refer to hairy or masculine folk, but a long obsolete usage. In Old English, being “mannish” meant one was of mankind, exhibiting humanity itself and human nature. And being mannish is at the heart of comedy, the quality of unspoken truths Williams’ indirectly told his audiences about, and made them laugh about, through his jokes and voices. You know, it’s funny because it’s true.

Robin Williams the ‘sad clown’

— Toronto Sun headline on August 11, 2014

(sad) clown (n.)

The word clown originally meant something along the lines of “lump.” From there, the word came to describe a clumsy boor or a lout—often some crass hayseed-type with no class or culture. Circa Shakespearean times, clowns evolved as fools who played up their ignorance or cultivated oddity for laughs, either in a court or on a stage. They were servants and sidekicks who might humiliate themselves, and hide their true selves, for others’ pleasure. And they could use that distance to mock more powerful figures by transforming themselves into something grotesque—and funny.

In Europe’s Romantic days, the notion of a sad clown—the type of character whose costume romantically masks inner turmoil—became popular. Part of this comes from the Italian Commedia dell’Arte theater that relied on certain stock characters that cropped up again and again. One of them was a bumpkin that actors began playing as a melancholy clown. Literary types were drawn to the sad clown as a character who was a creative master unappreciated by the public (no doubt because some of them felt that way themselves).

Certainly Robin Williams was appreciated, though perhaps not for the whole artist he might have been, after deviating from the Flubber era into more serious, darker roles. But he came to the American public as a clown. His first big part, as an alien learning human behavior on Mork & Mindy, was a creature weird and unrefined, a figure on the margins of humanity that knew life on this planet in a different way than the rest of us, in all its cruel, lovely sense and nonsense.

This is an edition of Wednesday Words, a weekly feature on language. For the previous post, click here.

TIME Media

#IfTheyGunnedMeDown and What Hashtag Activism Does Right

Social media protests have their limits, but one thing they're very, very good at is grassroots media criticism.

The injury, a deadly one, came first. Unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot to death by police in Ferguson, Mo. Then came the insult: many news accounts used a photo of Brown that showed him, unsmiling, gesturing at the camera in a way that led to unsubstantiated claims that he was “flashing gang signs.”

This portrayal of Brown, who is African American, recalled the quasi-trial-by-photo of Trayvon Martin, another young black man shot to death. It became another racially charged statement in a controversial killing, as outlets illustrated their stories with pictures that–rather than show the dead teen smiling or in a family context–led commenters to call him a “thug” and thus to suggest that he brought his death on himself.

So as people protested in the streets of Ferguson, a meta-protest began on social media. Twitter users, especially African Americans, began a meta-protest, posting pairs of photos with the hashtag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown: a young man in a military dress uniform, say, and the same poster flipping off the camera. If I got shot down, each post asked, which version of me would the media show you? (See more #IfTheyGunnedMeDown tweets here.)

The term “hashtag activism” has become a kind of putdown lately, with the connotation that it’s substituting gestures for action, as if getting something trending is a substitute for actually going out and engaging with the world. And sometimes the criticism is justified: no amount of social-media RT-ing managed to capture guerrilla leader Joseph Kony, for instance.

But #IfTheyGunnedMeDown was a simple, ingenious DIY form of media criticism: direct, powerful, and meaningful on many levels. It made the blunt point that every time a media outlet chooses a picture of someone like Brown, it makes a statement. It created identification: so many ordinary people–students, servicemen and women, community volunteers–could be made to look like a public menace with one photo dropped in a particular context. And it made a particular racial point: that it’s so much easier, given our culture’s racial baggage, for a teenager of color to be made to look like a “thug” than white teen showing off for a camera the exact same way.

It was a brilliant media critique, and while Twitter and other platforms may have no magical power to stop shootings or catch warlords, one thing they are very good at is catching the attention of the media. Journalists pay attention to Twitter–disproportionate attention, maybe–and that makes it a very, very good place to deliver the modern version of a letter to the editor. You could say similar of #YesAllWomen, or of the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag of earlier this year: no, it didn’t have the power to free the Nigerian schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram, but it did put the story on homepages and newscasts often resistant to overseas news, especially from sub-Saharan Africa.

#IfTheyGunnedMeDown is not going to stop anyone from being gunned down, but it most likely lodged in the memory of editors and producers who make judgments every day. Sure, many of them are already aware of the power of image choices, but #IfTheyGunnedMeDown chose its own images to make a powerful statement–one that people are likely to remember the next time “if” becomes “when.”

TIME Gadgets

Here Come the iPhone 6 Rumors

Here's a look at what you can expect when Apple announces the iPhone 6

+ READ ARTICLE

Both Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal report that Apple will unveil its two new iPhones at a Sept. 9 event.

According to reports, the iPhone 6 will come in two sizes, a 4.7″ and a 5.5″ screen size. This will help Apple in its efforts to appeal to a larger market internationally, where the desire for larger screens have hurt its sales in the global market.

Mac Rumors has said the newest iPhone to be debuted from Apple will be thinner and lighter with an updated processor.

TIME Media

The Best Quotes From Chrissy Teigen’s Esquire Interview

NBC And Time Inc. Celebrate 50th Anniversary Of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Model Christine Teigen attends NBC and Time Inc. celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue at Dolby Theatre on January 14, 2014 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images) Dimitrios Kambouris—Getty Images

Here's everything the model said in her interview

Supermodel Chrissy Teigen had about as many quotes as pictures in a recent Esquire interview, which featured a photo of her mowing a lawn in very high heels and a bikini. Teigen—who has appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated‘s swimsuit issue twice and is married to musician John Legend—did have some insights on some particularly random topics. We’ve gathered all her quotes in one place, broken down by topic, for your reading pleasure.

On pets:

Cats are “the devil’s children.”

“People love to say, ‘My cat is great. He’s just like a dog.’ I always think, Well, get a f***ing dog!”

On butts:

“I didn’t know butts were a thing until I was twenty-three. Then came Jennifer Lopez and people were like, ‘That butt is great.’ Now you have to have a butt. It sucks for me…I have a little half-Asian butt, and the more I work out, the more I try to get it bigger, it’s just going to get flatter and harder.”

On food and diets:

“If I’m going to eat fast food, I’m going to McDonald’s. I don’t need to pretend.”

“I looked at a Wheat Thin one day and got teary-eyed. You know those cartoons where the head of somebody becomes a turkey? That Wheat Thin looked like a f***ing turkey. My mouth was watering.”

American cheese is the most “underrated cheese.”

On beaches:

“Sand is disgusting. I get all Larry David at the beach and want every piece of sand off me.”

On John Goodman:

“I feel like part of me will die when John Goodman dies.”

Oh, and here’s that lawnmower picture:

TIME Media

Under Armour’s Stunning Ballerina Ad Aims to Lure Women From Lululemon

Dancer Misty Copeland turns the sportswear company's new empowerment campaign into a huge viral hit

+ READ ARTICLE

Most consumers associate Under Armour with the tight-fitting shirts that wick away football players’ sweat. But with its new “I Will What I Want” ads, Under Armour is trying to rebrand itself as gear that can empower female athletes, whether they’re playing soccer or taking a Pilates class.

Right now those women are turning to brands like Lululemon and Nike for their gear. To compete with those giants, Under Armour is launching the largest campaign aimed at women in its history, costing a total of $15 million. The company kicked off with a feel-good ad featuring a ballerina that went viral and racked up 4 million views in just one week.

The spot begins with a voiceover of a rejection letter: “You have the wrong body for ballet.” Ballerina Misty Copeland defiantly leaps in the air, ending with the Under Armour tag: “I will what I want.”

“I think every woman has her version of that rejection letter,” says Copeland. Though she did not receive that exact epistle, she believes it encapsulates the feedback she has received in her career. “Like many women, I was told that I wasn’t good enough and that I couldn’t succeed, but I willed myself to where I am now. I think that’s a message that resonates with all women. Success isn’t handed to us: we earn it.”

The inspiring message in her ad and those of the other athletes in the campaign—Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn, tennis player Sloane Stephens and soccer player Kelley O’Hara—picks up on the growing debate about shattering the glass ceiling. And by reading a list of Copeland’s supposed imperfections aloud at the beginning of the spot, Under Armour builds on popular campaigns from companies like Dove and American Eagle who aim to shatter body image stereotypes.

Copeland, 31, doesn’t fit the stereotype that most people have of a ballerina: tall and wafer-thin. She’s only 5’2″, has a large bust and insanely defined muscles. Her chiseled form is heavily featured in the commercial: she dances not in tights and a tutu but in a tight cropped shirt and underwear as the camera zooms in on her strong calves. Raised by a single mother in California, Copeland started dancing at 13–late by ballet standards–and was told as a young ballerina that she didn’t have the right body for the profession. But what she lacked in experience, she made up for in the kind of jaw-dropping talent that had her winning major dance contests within a few years of her first ballet class. She went on to become the third African-American female soloist in the American Ballet Theater’s history.

“It’s important to show athletic women, and the broader public, that both inner and outer strength is something that should be celebrated,” Copeland says of dispelling misconceptions about the ideal ballet body. “I’m grateful for the opportunity Under Armour has given me to show people the intense training and dedication that goes into ballet.”

Choosing Copeland also has the more practical purpose of positioning Under Armour as a competitor to the popular brands for yoga, dancing and spinning gear. Like the women who Under Armour hopes to target, she’s not an on-field, on-court athlete, but still has a strong body.

“It was a deliberate choice to feature Misty as someone who bucks the conventional definition of athlete and ushers in a new idea of what it means to be an athlete for Under Armour women,” says Leanne Fremar, the executive director of the women’s division at Under Armour.

Rebranding could mean big bucks for the company. Yoga wear company Lululemon Athletica had a net revenue of $1.6 billion for the 2013 fiscal year. Under Armour—whose annual net revenue (including both its men’s and women’s lines) is around $2 billion but makes only about 30% of its sales to women—wants to capture part of Lululemon’s market. “The women’s business could be as big if not bigger than the men’s business is,” says Fremar.

But to do that, Under Armour must advertise itself as both durable and fashionable: the growth of Lululemon has been built by women wearing the brand’s leggings as casual wear as well as in the yoga studio. Under Armour’s began that endeavor by hiring of Fremar, who was formerly the creative director at the high-end fashion brand, Theory. The company has since increased its presence in department stores and made deals with Gilt, a flash-sale website popular among women. In doing so, the company is following Nike’s model, which has heavily promoted its stylish sportswear: recently Nike has been monopolizing Net-A-Sporter, a sportswear spin-off of high-end retail website Net-A-Porter.

The Misty Copeland empowerment campaign is the capstone to Under Armour’s women-focused efforts. The company is launching the ads when competitor Lululemon is at its weakest. This past year, Lululemon’s numbers dropped 35% year-to-date after the company had to recall its too-see-through yoga pants and when its CEO Chip Wilson made controversial comments about the size of its ideal female consumers. (Wilson has since stepped down.) Just after Wilson shamed women’s bodies, Under Armour is bolstering women’s self-image.

TIME

21st Century Fox Withdraws Time Warner Takeover Bid

Business Leaders Gather For B20 Summit In Sydney
Rupert Murdoch, Executive Chairman News Corporation looks on during a panel discussion at the B20 meeting of company CEO's on July 17, 2014 in Sydney, Australia. Pool—Getty Images

The merger, if allowed, would have been one of the largest of all time

Mass media titan 21st Century Fox has withdrawn its $80 billion offer to take over Time Warner, ending what would have been one of the largest media mergers of all time.

Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch said in a statement Tuesday that the Time Warner board “refused to engage” on the offer to purchase its assets, and as a result, Fox had withdrawn its bid.

“Our proposal had significant strategic merit and compelling financial rationale and our approach had always been friendly,” said Murdoch in a statement. “However, Time Warner management and its Board refused to engage with us to explore an offer which was highly compelling.”

Murdoch’s media conglomerate made a bid to take over Time Warner nearly two months ago, reaching out to Time Warner chief executive Jeff Bewkes in early June. The deal would have put Murdoch at the head of a portfolio of major household media brands, including TNT, TBS, HBO, Warner Brothers, Fox News and others.

In his statement, Murdoch also said that the 10% drop in 21st Century Fox’s share price after news of its Time Warner bid has undervalued his company’s stock.

Time Warner said after the announcement that it is “well positioned for success” with its current television, cable and film studio assets.

In the minutes after news broke of Fox’s withdrawal, Time Warner’s share price dipped over 11% in after-hours trading. Time Warner is the former parent company of Time Inc.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45,083 other followers