I did read the article, and think your interpretation of what is says is quite wrong. I also read the opinion, in which discussion of the issue starts around page 28. It does not support your argument at all.
That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article.
LOL no. This is so far off the marks that I think any attempt at explaining it is going to be waste of time. If you seriously disagree, I invite you to cite to the opinion in making your argument.
For example, on the 'transformative nature of the work' test (p.32) the court had this to say:
Neither the purpose nor use of the Meltwater News Reports,nor its excerpts from the Registered Articles in the NewsReports, is transformative. Meltwater uses its computer programs to automatically capture and republish designated segments of text from news articles, without adding any commentary or insight in its News Reports. Meltwater copies AP content in order to make money directly from the undiluted use of the copyrighted material; this is the central feature of its business model and not an incidental consequence of the use to which it puts the copyrighted material. Thus, it is not surprising that Meltwater’s own marketing materials convey an intent to serve as a substitute for AP’s news service.
This directly contradicts your claim that adding your own original content enhances the claim of copyright infringement. In fact, the exact opposite is true.