Greetings from Los Angeles. Fifteen years ago, I had the unforgettable privilege of spending four months working as an intern for Lewis H. Lapham, the legendary Harper’s editor who had recently launched his own namesake quarterly in which he culled together works from the vast catalog of world literature and history (novelists, bards, poets, politicians, etcetera) to examine a theme. (If memory serves, I contributed to the issues on Religion, Arts & Letters, and Sports & Games.)

I didn’t know Lewis when I joined, I was simply drawn to the concept after coming across the inaugural issue, on War, in an airport. Drawn so strongly, in fact, that I moved from relatively comfortable circumstances in Los Angeles to an impossibly small fifth-story walk-up on the Lower East Side and spent 10 hours a day in the magazine’s offices on Irving Place, where I was afforded absolutely no compensation for full-time work proofreading copy, submitting ideas that often didn’t take, and, on one very memorable occasion, getting into a heated argument with Salman Rushdie when I dared to fact-check a guest column in which he took quite a great deal of poetic license. I loved every minute of it, obviously.

Of course, what I loved most of all was the exposure to Lewis, himself—a brilliant and witty and indefatigably classy Upper East Side scholar-aristocrat steeped in literature and history, unfailingly bedecked in a three-piece suit and smoking two packs of Parliaments a day. (Lewis’s doting and anxious assistant seemed to fret over the effects of so much nicotine on her boss’s then-74-year-old lungs, and on one occasion during my tenure there Lewis returned from a doctor’s appointment and triumphantly informed her that his doctor had told him, “Lewis, if you stop smoking, you’ll die.”) He was a true old-school WASP, a Tom Wolfe character brought to life, a man of letters and Elaine’s regular who represented an era of New York that Spy spoofed and yet we all somehow miss, more than a bit.

Lewis had already lived a lifetime by that point and was a legend for his stewardship of Harper’s. I never bothered to do much research on his past; I was simply impressed by the man I saw before me. He arrived early, worked tirelessly on his essay for each issue, reviewed and re-reviewed every contribution, ate lunch at his desk if he could avoid a meeting, and was incredibly generous with his wisdom and his time. And if you were still in the office at the end of the day, he might take you out for a glass of wine. On a few weekends, he asked if I could help out in the office, a privilege that would inevitably extend into a trip to the bar around the corner, where he would quote Greek poets while watching golf.

Nothing in life or in work is quite so motivating as a great mentor, and I’ve been privileged to have quite a few of them. Lewis was the first to impress upon me the necessity of historical literacy, the power of wit, and the importance of style, both in how one lived and how one wrote. Fittingly, I quoted him in my very first piece for Puck.

In any event, shortly before hitting send on this email, I received news that Lewis passed away last night in Italy (too fitting), at the age of 89. I don’t have the historical perspective on his legacy to write the obit, nor can I say that four months in his presence would even give me the right to do so. But it does afford me the chance to say here that he was a legend in his field, that I wouldn’t be writing for a living without him, and that the world of arts and letters is a hell of a lot better off for everything he gave to it. So, here’s to you, Lewis.

Moving on… In tonight’s email, news and notes on the state of legacy media heading into the last 100 days of a suddenly dynamic and volatile presidential campaign cycle. The Biden debate disaster, the Trump assassination attempt, and the surprise Kamala coronation have brought a surge of audience engagement to beleaguered news orgs—which means absolutely nothing unless they can follow the Times playbook and convert those audiences into loyal, and ideally paying, customers.

But first…

👀 Murdoch’s succession war: Rupert Murdoch has moved to change the terms of his irrevocable family trust “to ensure that his eldest son and chosen successor, Lachlan, would remain in charge of his vast collection of television networks and newspapers,” according to a sealed court document obtained by The New York Times. “The trust currently hands control of the family business to the four oldest children when Mr. Murdoch dies,” the Times reports. “But he is arguing in court that only by empowering Lachlan to run the company without interference from his more politically moderate siblings can he preserve its conservative editorial bent, and thus protect its commercial value for all his heirs.” More to come on this very Succession-style plot twist in the days ahead…

🇺🇸 The Trump-Harris debate(s): Fox News sent letters to both the Trump and Harris campaigns on Wednesday inviting them to participate in a presidential debate on September 17, one week after the ABC News debate scheduled for September 10. The invitation comes days after Trump suggested that the ABC debate be moved to Fox, despite his campaign’s previous commitment to participate with the broadcast network. For whatever it’s worth, several ABC News sources say they’re confident their debate will take place—whether Trump and Harris participate with Fox or not.

Meanwhile, both Fox and the Trump campaign may seek to make a liability out of the longstanding ties between Harris and Disney Entertainment co-chair Dana Walden, who oversees ABC. Harris has described Walden and her husband, Matt, as “extraordinary friends,” and as my partner Matt Belloni noted this week, the Waldens have made multiple donations to Harris over the years and hosted a fundraiser for her at their Brentwood home in 2022.

In any event, now that Harris is the presumptive Democratic nominee, it’s possible other networks could pursue additional debates, as well. “The chessboard has been flipped over,” one TV news source who works closely with both campaigns told me. As for the CBS News vice presidential debate, no updates on that front until Harris names her V.P. pick.

⬆️ Moving on up: Speaking of which: I’m told CBS News C.E.O. Wendy McMahon is likely to eventually promote her lieutenant and ally Adrienne Roark into an expanded role that will give her greater oversight of the news division. Roark, who is currently the president of content development and integration for CBS News and Stations, would likely assume many of the responsibilities previously held by outgoing CBS News president Ingrid Ciprián-Matthews. Ciprián-Matthews recently announced that she would be stepping down—in part, I was told, to avoid the unenviable task of implementing staff cuts ahead of Paramount’s sale to Skydance.

🏀 Zaz drops the ball: The NBA has rejected David Zaslav’s attempt to match Amazon’s proposal and keep games on TNT. “Warner Bros. Discovery’s most recent proposal did not match the terms of Amazon Prime Video’s offer and, therefore, we have entered into a long-term arrangement with Amazon,” the league said in a statement. My partner John Ourand, who has been all over this story, anticipates that Zaz will now sue the NBA for violating its matching rights agreement—and, indeed, TNT Sports released its own statement objecting to the NBA’s decision and saying it would take “appropriate action.” Not sure other leagues like the UFC will want to go into business with a litigious media partner, but we shall see. In any event, Zaz’s handling of this negotiation has been undeniably disastrous. As one Wall Street analyst and loyal subscriber well-versed in the Puck lexicon texted me on Wednesday: “The NBA is the debacle of debacles. Any other C.E.O. would have been defenestrated for this level of mismanagement.”

Meanwhile, CNBC reports that the NBA will make $77 billion on its new deals over the next 11 years. The final numbers: Disney: $2.62 billion per year; NBCUniversal: $2.45 billion per year; Amazon: $1.93 billion per year. Of course, John will be keeping close tabs on this developing story, so if you haven’t already signed up for his private email, The Varsity, be sure to do so.

By the way, we’ve updated our Newsletter Experience questionnaire for Puck subscribers. If you haven’t filled yours out, it takes less than 3 minutes, and your feedback will help us develop new products and services. Click here to complete the brief survey—no need to log in. Thanks!

Five nights later, more than 25 million people watched Trump deliver his speech at the Republican convention on TV—with more than 10 million watching on Fox News alone. And when President Biden announced on Sunday that he would not seek reelection, CNN’s digital traffic spiked 500 percent while audiences for its CNN Max streaming service spiked 1,000 percent, according to a network spokesperson.

Not surprisingly, the last four weeks of this suddenly volatile presidential campaign cycle have injected a much-needed infusion of traffic, engagement, and momentum into a beleaguered legacy news industry. Politics is part of the zeitgeist again—mostly on TikTok and X and in your inbox, sure, but also on television and on old-fashioned websites. Since the debate, Fox News has outperformed every cable and broadcast channel in weekly ratings. Morning Joe has recaptured its mojo: First as the forum for the post-debate Biden-Pelosi proxy war, now as the testing stage for Kamala Harris’s V.P. hopefuls, a number of whom kissed the ring on its air on Monday morning. Meanwhile, the political press corps has rediscovered its purpose and its relevance. And all of this is registering in Nielsen and Comscore ratings that are once again being touted by P.R. reps who’ve almost forgotten what it was like to have something to brag about.

Dynamic political cycles have historically served as definitive growth moments for news organizations. Founded during the Clinton years, Fox News hit liftoff in the era of the hanging chad. Politico and BuzzFeed gained prominence in the 2008 and 2012 campaign cycles, respectively. Axios launched at the dawn of the Trump presidency. The New York Times and The Washington Post both achieved 50 percent year-over-year subscription growth during the era; and the events surrounding the 2020 election pushed cable news to the highest ratings in its history, with billions in annual profits for both Fox News and CNN. Presumably, the next 100-plus days leading up to the election should deliver similarly notable spikes for many of America’s most notable legacy news organizations, even if their leadership teams recognize that the glory and riches are transitory.

Of course, as a close reading of the previous paragraph shows, the benefits of such growth can be ephemeral without an enduring business strategy that isn’t tethered to the whims of the news cycle. Politico became an international politics and policy juggernaut built around a robust B2B professional services business that went on to sell to Axel Springer for $1 billion. Axios redefined the email format and forged unprecedented success in the corporate affairs advertising space before selling for $525 million to Cox in half a decade. But BuzzFeed, for its part, arrogantly rode the social traffic wave to retrospectively hilarious fundraises and a gory public market reckoning.

The Times kept all of those new subscribers long after Trump left office by offering them an array of games and advertising-friendly lifestyle services alongside the robust and expansive news reporting. Of course, the Post notably did not and saw its audience churn out at a rapid clip. Fox News kept its staunchly anti-liberal posture and maintained influence among conservatives of a certain age, while CNN abandoned the Zucker-led editorial tactics that had fueled its success in the Trump era, tried fitfully to pivot to a nebulous “middle,” and, thanks to inept leadership, delayed a much-needed digital transformation that is only now starting to come to fruition.

On the digital front, NBC News and CNN have the largest reach, with 123 million and 107 million monthly unique visitors, respectively, according to Comscore. Fox News has 89 million, putting it roughly on par with The New York Times at 90 million (Fox claims 104 million monthly U.V.s in its promotional material, but this includes social traffic, which is not a universally accepted practice). But NBC, CNN, and Fox’s numbers are all down from the same period a year prior—and in CNN’s case quite considerably, by more than 13 percent.

Coupled with the dismal numbers CNN has seen on the linear side in recent years, with just around half a million viewers in primetime even during major breaking news events, the numbers point to an indisputable decline in the brand’s overall popularity. “Their brand relevance is shrinking,” one digital media executive observed. Obviously, this is the morass CNN C.E.O. Mark Thompson is trying to reverse, but he may have failed to appreciate how much the linear product serves as a funnel for digital engagement.

Meanwhile, NBC News is buoyed to some extent by its portfolio diversity: The Today show’s digital lifestyle content alone brings in 46 million monthly unique visitors, roughly equal to The Washington Post’s 47 monthly U.V.s. (Yes, the Post’s numbers are that low, I can’t sugarcoat it.) CNBC remains the leading business network and news site. And of course there is MSNBC, which before this month consistently doubled CNN’s television audience and remains the preferred outlet for Democrats talking to Democrats. Fox News is the indisputable linear ratings leader, and its 89 million monthly digital uniques outperform ABC News, which averages 83 million. Most importantly, of course, both MSNBC and Fox News benefit from the tribalism of our politics in a way CNN and ABC can’t.

More significant than reach, however, is engagement. According to the Comscore numbers, users are spending far less time engaging with the content on all the aforementioned sites, with the notable exception of the Times, where games and cooking are driving more time spent. And therein lies the challenge for every major news organization between now and November: to leverage the momentum of this news cycle and turn this momentary boon into sustained growth the way the Times did in the previous decade—and then, in some cases, turn that engagement into a self-sustaining and enduring business model.

Subscription is an obvious option, but it isn’t the only one. And yet the problem with it, of course, is that it’s nearly impossible for a consumer to discern between an ABC News story and a CBS News one. Digital, like cable, is long on problems, short on solutions, and even shorter on visionary executives with the stomachs and latitude to figure it out. To wit: There’s a reason why Thompson remains so popular at CNN despite the widespread fears among talent and staff that his plan is too modest. It all boils down to a simple reality: They feel lucky to have him, and know the next guy up will only be half as good or experienced.

In a week or so, nearly every one of the aforementioned news networks is likely to issue a press release touting record ratings or traffic for the month of July, a proof of life statement for news organizations that are otherwise managing their way through inexorable decline. But those eyeballs are meaningless unless those audiences are actively being converted into loyal and engaged customers. Alas, 100 days is not a long time, and for some of these companies it may already be too late.