Ethics on Film: Discussion of "September 5"

September 5, 1972 was a shocking day for the Western world. With the Summer Olympics in full swing in Munich, Germany, the headline of the day was supposed to be American swimmer Mark Spitz’s record-breaking seven-gold medal performance. But in the early morning hours, Palestinian militant organization Black September changed the course of history. Members of the group broke into the Israeli section of the Olympic Village, killed wrestling coach Moshe Weinberg and weightlifter Yossef Romano, and held nine members of the delegation as hostages, demanding Israel release 200 Palestinian prisoners.

The 2024 film September 5, written, produced, and directed by the Swiss-born Tim Fehlbaum, recounts the day from the perspective of the mostly American ABC Sports television crew working at the Olympics. Using archival footage, handheld cameras, 16mm film, and shot mostly in a dark, cramped basement replicated on the actual control room in Munich, the movie aims for authenticity and realism. Still the overwhelming horror and sadness of the day doesn’t always come through, as the film keeps its focus on the perception of the massacre, rather than the massacre itself.

Synopsis

When the shots first rang out around 4:00 am on September 5 in the Olympic Village, members of the nearby ABC crew initially didn’t believe what they heard. Though it was only 27 years since the end of World War II, these games had to that point been a celebration of the revived West Germany and, as always, a way for nations to set aside their differences. The production team was focused on volleyball, boxing, and Spitz's exploits, but as reports started to trickle in, it was clear that they would have to quickly change their plans.

Amidst the chaos of the control room, we see the day mostly through the eyes of young producer Geoffrey Mason (John Magaro). As the pressure mounts, he is faced with one big decision after another, culminating with West German police storming the station, as ABC unwittingly broadcasts what was supposed to be a covert rescue attempt. Eventually the terrorists and hostages are moved to a nearby airport on a bus and Mason sends two members of his team to investigate what turns out to be a prolonged gunfight. As the guns finally fall silent, West German authorities, and then the ABC broadcast, say that the remaining hostages have all been freed. The truth, though, soon comes out—all the hostages have been killed in the fighting at the airport, along with one police officer, and five Black September members.

With the feel of a “bottle episode,” the viewer gets no break from this claustrophobic and tense environment where emotions and decisions—ethical and technical—are heightened. We learn about the politics of satellite feeds among the American networks; how to put a logo on screen; whether a shooting can be shown on live TV; the differences between “commandos,” “militants,” and “terrorists;” and much more. “Cameos” from legendary broadcasters Peter Jennings (Benjamin Walker) and Howard Cosell (an uncredited voice on a telephone) add to the sense of history.

The Legacy of World War II

As the film tells it, politics was on the mind of ABC crew even before the shooting started. In a scene prior to the attacks, ABC president Roone Areledge (Peter Sarsgaard) discusses a plan to interview Spitz, who is Jewish, working in questions about the Holocaust. Marvin Bader (Ben Chaplin), head of operations at ABC Sports and also Jewish, pushes back. Ultimately the interview doesn’t happen, and Spitz is escorted out of the country (probably by Marines) before the end of the games, with concerns that he could be a target for the terrorists as well.

The specter of the Holocaust also looms over the attack in several ways. Of course, there is the attack itself—it’s a nightmare for West German authorities that Jewish athletes were targeted in Munich just miles down the road from Dachau. But the attack probably played out as it did, in part, because of decisions related to World War II. There were no armed guards at the Olympic Village because of the lingering connotations of Germans “patrolling fences” with guns. And rescue attempts were also stymied because, due to an agreement made after the war, the German military, as it was in 1972, was not allowed to operate in the nation during peacetime. This led a French member of the ABC team to quip: “So Germany’s makeover is more important than people’s safety?” The Leon Trotsky quote also comes to mind: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

It is, of course, worth remembering how close this event happened to World War II—anyone over the age of 35 probably had vivid recollections of those years. Emotions were still raw, to say the least. At one point Bader unfairly asks Marianne Gebhardt, the crew’s young German translator (Leonie Benesch) what her parents knew during the war—surely just one of many fraught encounters. The 1972 Olympics tried to be celebratory and uniting, and many West Germans had indeed done all that they could to change the image of their nation, but it was probably too soon for many for levity, even before September 5.

The Ethics of (Making a Movie about) Journalism

There are countless ethical issues relating to the media that come up in September 5—the morality of showing violence live on TV, the importance of having multiple sources, how journalists should deal with law enforcement and other authorities, etc. To some, though, these dilemmas feel a bit outdated and even tone deaf. In The Washington Post, Ty Burr writes: “The filmmakers’ focus on granular principles feels like a lost opportunity when the entire business is in a spiral of existential distress.” And in The Independent, Clarisse Loughrey says that the film showcases a “willful ignorance when it comes to both historical context and journalistic ethics.”

Others, though, point out that September 5 was a truly groundbreaking day for the news industry—more people watched ABC coverage of the attacks than watched the Moon landing in 1969. Forced to improvise, the ABC Sports crew became the first, for better or worse, to ever broadcast a terrorist attack live. To think of it more deeply, The Hollywood Reporter’s Steven Zeitchik writes that “decisions made that day are a villainous origin story for our voyeuristic infotainment era.” Complicating the proceedings is the fact that these were mostly sports reporters and producers operating far out of their comfort zone. In one memorable scene, Jennings has to define the “charged” term of “terrorism” to his colleagues, while explaining the deep sensitivities connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. “You’re in way over your head,” he says to the sports crew.

Focusing on the media coverage of the day does truly illustrate two sides of the journalism industry. At its best, impartial experts are focused on delivering the truth to people who otherwise would never hear the story; at its worst, producers, reporters, and executives can become numb to the suffering that’s all around them, solely focused on notoriety and the competitive aspect of getting the story first.

September 5 & October 7

It must be mentioned that though this film was released in 2024, it was filmed prior to the Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ensuing war still being waged by Israel in Gaza. Of course, the filmmakers had no way of knowing that any of this would happen so it may be unfair to criticize them for this aspect.

That type of thinking, though, skims over the fact that issues related to Palestine and Israel have been heated for decades. And as this story was told by someone who (seemingly) has no personal connection to either nation, as a way of spotlighting others who, also, had no personal connection to either nation, some may have questions about whether this was the right way to tell this story.

Aside from the aforementioned information-sharing by Jennings, there is virtually no discussion of the political issues leading up to the attacks. But it’s hard to see how that would have fit in, keeping in mind the style that this film was made. Still, these are all choices that filmmakers have to make. The goal of September 5 was not to explore the motivations of Black September or emotions felt by the affected communities in the wake of the attacks; the goal was seemingly to be apolitical. But to make this film in this way in 2025, for many, is a political statement, in and of itself.

Discussion Questions

1. Was watching September 5 a useful way to lean about the Munich massacre? Why or why not?
2. What are the ethical issues that journalists need to consider when covering an event like a terrorist attack?
3. What mistakes did the ABC crew make on September 5? What did they do well?
4. Was "terrorist" the correct term for members of the Black September organization?
5. How should the Israeli-Arab conflict and issues about Palestine be discussed after October 7 and the war in Gaza? Was September 5 insensitive in how it portrayed this conflict?
6. Should the September 5 filmmakers have been more focused on political issues when making this movie?
7. Should the 1972 Summer Olympics have been held in West Germany? Why or why not?

Works Cited

"It Chronicles What Happened in 1972 — But ‘September 5’ Is About Our Social Media Present," Steven Zeitchik, The Hollywood Reporter, December 10, 2024

"Oscar-nominated Munich Olympics drama September 5 is the wrong film for the moment," Clarisse Loughrey, The Independent, February 6, 2025

"‘September 5’ and the Pitfalls of German Idealism," Allison Meakem, Foreign Policy, February 27, 2025

"‘September 5’: A gripping drama set at the ’72 Olympics," Ty Burr, The Washington Post, January 9, 2025

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is an independent and nonpartisan nonprofit. The views expressed within this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Carnegie Council.