You say you are making a narrow argument, but how? You cannot shape the reality of the argument such that it conveniently fits the narrative. The world is complex, and if there is an important nuance to be added, we cannot just ignore it because the initial argument is narrow. That is not how debating works. Like, we cannot just rewind to October 6th and ignore everything since then. There is important context in events that have unfolded since.
You say: “Hamas is far, far worse” but how? Israel has litterally just banned al Jazeera, I’m not aware that Hamas has e.g. banned the BBC. If your earlier point was that there was no Haaretz operating in Gaza, but how? Gaza is under occupation and a sever blockade, any media operation is bound to suffer under such circumstances. Free journals without state subsidies are hard in most economies, in impoverished regions like Gaza, much more so. And even if such press could thrive, Israel has been targeting journalists in Palestine even before Oct 7, this includes detention and even assassinations.
The state control which Hamas imposes upon journalism in Gaza is minute next to the state control which Israel imposes upon the same population. Hamas’s control is negligible. Yes they operate their own TV station and Radio. But they do not target journalists operating in Gaza, they do not detain and assassinate journalists, they do no not bomb offices of foreign media operators, they do not ban international media from broadcasting in their territory. Israel does all these things.