You have missed both points entirely.
You're assuming that there are 'free market' conditions here (i.e. competition) - there are not. Not even close.
'Free market' ideals such as 'competition and innovation' are not the issues here, because a) there is no 'free market' and b) we're talking about mass media, which is really not about 'innovation'.
#1 is a very legitimate issue. To control the mass media, is to control a nation, this is not a 'new world order' concept, it's as old as time.
The CCP maintains it's power in China due to it's control over the media, not the army. By suppressing any and all information against them, and controlling all of the messaging people hear, and of course limiting outside access, you can effectively control people.
Media is a protected industry everywhere. Tell me who owns the main media outlets in Sweden? Germany? UK? USA? They are almost universally domestically owned and operated - when they are not (Rupert Murdoch) even then it creates problems.
The very existence of the BBC, CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia) speaks to this.
Imagine if the CCP itself wanted to buy NBC News. Would we allow that? No.
It's not a lite argument to say 'security' can be used for anything, after all any excuse can be used to validate something.
#1 is real.
As far as #2 - you're crossing streams.
China has a completely 'unlevel' playing field vis-a-vis the US in many markets. CCP controls monetary policy, industrial policy, major banks and most major industry players. This is 'not allowed' in free trade, because it means the CCP will do things like 'require large banks to subsidize solar panel makers to produce surplus to dump on US markets and put US players out of business'. This is not a hypothetical - it happened.
China doesn't allow foreign competitors in so many markets: foreign entities must be 51% China owned. They must have CCP officials working at the company to force CCP oversight. They must censor information, provide data to the CCP. Foreign entities must hand over IP to the CCP so they can give it to competitive entities. China puts up all sorts of non-market barriers to competition.
So when we talk about 'number 2' - the US, in order to provide a 'fair trade' scenario, should effectively apply the very same policies.
So imagine:
1) Chinese companies cannot operate in the US unless 51% US ownership.
2) They must employ GOP/CIA/FBI internally in order to effectuate US strategic policy, censorship.
3) Chinese companies must hand over source code and IP, so the US can give it to local companies while the US 'holds up' Chinese competitor in red tape.
4) US government takes control of the Fed, major banks, and provides massive subsidies to Cisco, and subsidizes Ciscos sales internationally with extremely good financing terms.
5) US government uses industrial espionage to grab Chinese IP and invest in local companies, for example, stealing all Huawei's designs etc., copying them, and creating a company to compete with them etc..
Those would be 'tit for tat' policies implying 'fair trade' between the US and China.
Your comments about 'concerns over competitiveness' are actually way, way further down the pile of issues.
As I say, 'national security' is reason enough for the ban.
After that, there are a host of 'fair trade' issues that should be applied.
Only then does it even make sense to start worrying about the more strategic competitive issues, because until then there is no market based competition.