The Utah Supreme Court approved a reporter shield rule this past week, meaning that people like me don't have to tell people like you where we got our information.

The rule has its purposes. It's a hedge against corruption. It encourages a free flow of information. It means you will continue to read juicy news — how much money Carlos Boozer makes, for example, and other such details that are almost never attributed to an identifiable source.

And it does bring Utah, one of just three states without some kind of shield law, in step with the vast majority. Conventional wisdom is that it's a good thing for journalists to be able to protect their confidential sources.

But as the media celebrate long into the night I can't help thinking about "Absence of Malice."

"Absence of Malice" is a Hollywood movie starring Paul Newman, Sally Field and Utah's own Wilford Brimley. It's about media ethics and cuts to the heart of the problem when confidential sources are either not credible or operating under their own agenda.

In other words, people who use the media when the media think they're using the people.

The new shield rule protects reporters' sources, but where is the corresponding shield protecting people and organizations being reported on when those sources aren't fair and honest?

And if the sources themselves aren't corrupt, what about those reporters who would use, abuse and hide behind confidential sources for their own selfish purposes?

Maybe their sources exist, maybe they don't. Maybe these reporters only use sources that agree with them and throw out the ones that don't. Or maybe they take a confidential source's quotes out of context, but the source can't set the record straight without outing itself.

And then there's the problem of news organizations with their own agendas that use confidential informants with a similar ideology to the collective advantage of both.

"Unidentified sources within the administration" can just as easily be disgruntled employees with an ax to grind as they can be freedom fighters battling genuine corruption. Either way, it's much harder to tell which is which when they remain unidentified.

As a reporter, I know the value of people speaking "off the record" and "for background." Without this information, news can tend to be awfully boring and not as complete.

But I also know that just because someone says something doesn't make it true. A story backed by a source, or even multiple sources, does not guarantee its accuracy. And when the sources can stay secret, accuracy does not go up.

Utah's new shield rule is a good thing for honest, responsible reporters who do their homework to guard against getting used. It gives them breathing room to be even more fair and objective.

But it's not a good thing for dishonest, subjective, agenda-packing reporters who already enjoy a huge advantage with libel and slander laws that require defining the elusive standard of "malice aforethought."

Not only do these people buy ink by the barrel, they now have the shield law on their side.

---

Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.