"Assuming the constitution is to protect the rights of its citizens and entities, if a media entity has interests and controls out side our nation, should it be afforded the same protections?"

That is a false assumption. The Constitution of 1789 was a fraudulent take-over of an existing federation of independent states, a fraud perpetrated by a group of powerful people whose power depended upon Central Banking Fraud, Slave Labor, Perpetual War, and the assumption of ownership of all the land in all the states.

If you instead frame the question as a reference to the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution of 1789, then it can be assumed that you are speaking about the common law.

Your question would then be:

Assuming the common law is to protect the rights of all the people all the time without exception, then does that same use of that same tool apply to people who do not abide by the common law?

The answer is no.

If someone abides by the common law then someone will subject themselves to due process according to the common law, a voluntary agreement, so by reasonable application of logic someone who will not abide by the common law is someone who decides not to be protected by the common law, someone outside the law: an outlaw.

Example:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

Those are common law principles expressed by one of the members of the first congress in 1776 during the discussion about the idea of publishing a Declaration of Independence.

Those who agree to protect each other (common law principles) do so, as demonstrated over time, as a matter of fact. Why would that change because someone from another area, Europe, Asia, Australia, wanders into the area that is under the common law principles? If anyone foreign or domestic turns from voluntary mutual defense of everyone (common law principles), then they decide, on their own authority, to become an outlaw, as confessed by their actions, once they start aggressively harming innocent people.

Common law principle: "...allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withcrawn...."

So the Constitution which promised African Slave traders a Subsidy in the form of "protection" for their Slave Trade business, was a clear and present danger to all the Slaves then in America, and the millions of slaves soon to be enslaved with that Slave Trade Deal known as the Constitution of 1789. So those foreigners, those African Slaves, had no protection at all, instead they were enslaved by the National Tax and National Subsidy as well as the individual Human Traffic Carriers and Slave Consumers.

Clearly, if the aggressors can extort money from every pocket in U.S.A. to Subsidize Slavery, there is no law, there is no "protection" other than a euphemism no different than the Italian Mob collecting "protection money" in New York City.

So, if you are actually referring to the Bill of Rights, not the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) Constitution of 1789, then your reference to "...protect the rights of its citizens..." can only mean the common law, due process, trial by jury, which is trial by the country. If so, then clearly that lawful process has been usurped by fraud since 1789, as proven in many cases, not the least of which is any case of any slave anywhere having no access to that law power.

Note also something called The Alien and Sedition Acts, whereby British Loyalists publishing Media inside the many States of America were "protected" while those not protected were the people speaking out against that Tyranny. That is a complete reversal of your question, exemplified as a historical fact.

The British Loyalist Party, then called The Federalist Party, under John Adams, enforced a gag order on anyone not towing the official British line. So...foreign media was protected, while domestic media was aggressively attacked.