Is quote approval ethical? No one ever said these things were easy

Ethical journalism, in this Leveson era, involves checking back with a story's core participant before publication (unless that CP is reaching for an injunction). Call it Max Mosley's Law, in a minor key. But what happens (see the New York Times ) when an Obama or Romney aide demands that candidate quotes have to be cleared by him – and can be cleaned up, if so wished, on pain of future access denied? Thus John Terry wouldn't have said F****** B**** C*** but Frightfully Boring Chap. No more gaffes, no more stumbles, no more messy reality. Is that a perversion of the truth, or a better way of keeping the issues pristine? There's no doubt what America thinks. Cue uproar. Cue news agencies and papers withdrawing the "right" to doctor awkward blurts. But if the smoothed quote helps better understanding – if it enlightens what was meant rather than hides it? If … if … if you want to debate ethics for hours on end without reaching a conclusion?