What is it you want people clicking on your posting to derive from this?
First, that altho Sullivan is objectionable to me, I understand the motives of the SCOTUS justices sitting in 1964 - all nine of them - in ruling as they did. I do not discern any partisanship in the decision, and strongly agree with the motive.But, secondly, the Associated Press - indeed, wire services generally - have effects not contemplated by the author(s) of the First Amendment (who after all had no experience of even the possibility of a virtual meeting) and not considered at all in the Sullivan decision. Not considered, because nobody brought it up.
The conclusion is that a very different case, firmly based in antitrust law, should be brought to SCOTUS. That case would adduce proof (which abounds) that real, existing journalism as we know it is an engine of cynicism towards society and of promotion of government at the expense of liberty. That, far from providing the wisdom to be hoped for from " a multitude of tongues,” wire service journalism is a “borg” speaking with a single voice. And that a political party heeds that (single, de facto) voice, to the detriment of society. And that consequently the AP, perhaps all wire services, should be disbanded because of their homogenizing effect on journalism and because economizing on the use of telegraphy bandwidth is now of trivial benefit to society. And that now that the member news outlets of the AP have absorbed an ingrained culture of going along and getting along, they will remain suspect of colluding, even if the AP itself goes away.
IMHO, the Republican Party - the Trump Republican Party - must bring that case. The Paul Ryan/John McCain Republican Party would never have the guts to do it.