Traditionally, newspapers' Opinion and Editorial sections have solicited contributions from major political figures. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has run the following:
"The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama)
"A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence)
"I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard)
"Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul)
"How Short-Termism Saps the Economy" (by Joe Biden)
"Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap" (by Sarah Palin)
"Why Americans Are So Angry" and "Trump Is the Worst Kind of Socialist" (by Bernie Sanders)
"Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders" (by Elizabeth Warren)
Readers of the Journal typically value these pieces as the newsworthy opinions of important figures, even if they disagree with the authors and the politics therein quite vehemently. Very few readers would mistake these pieces' publication for an endorsement, or for depraved and wanton profit-seeking. Rather, publication of these opinions is itself a form of journalism.
Readers of the Times today, however, seem to expect that the ethics of the Times ought to be driven by the Times waging total war on their common political enemies, and that to do otherwise is an offense against decency. The Times does a good job of waging such a war in the general case, sometimes quite laudably; when it does make its exceptions, however, allowing things like the Cotton editorial, it has generally been in the service of Journalism as well, communicating the newsworthy opinions of important figures.
You should not fear, my erstwhile Times-reading comrade! All signs indicate that the Times has capitulated, and your victory over the forces of Journalism has been secured.
(edit: Added the Bernie Sanders and Warren editorials to the list)