This Sunday's PD carried a story about an exciting new polymer center at Case. The story profiled Anne Hiltner, the Center's impressive director. Read more. In the world of economic development, this news is a big deal.

There's only one problem: the event took place over seven months ago (last July). See the original press release from Case here. The original PD story was short (324 words) and largely missed the importance of the event for our region.

Profiling Dr. Hiltner is a good move by the PD. But the fact remains that the profile is separated from the event by seven months. I just question the editorial decisions made by the PD on this story. In other words, why did they place this story far below casino gambling in their economic development priorities in the past six months?

Why did they take such a long time to recognize Dr. Hiltner's extraordinary achievement?

Why do the editors seem to have so little understanding that Dr. Hiltner's work -- and the work of other research scientists at Case -- is critical to the economic future of our region? (See the recent working paper from the Cleveland Federal Reserve here. This paper underscores the importance of educational attainment and patents as key economic drivers.)

As I look into the story, there are other important angles to explore. For example, the grant includes a partnership between Case and the Cleveland Metro School District. How will this partnership work? Could this partnership lead to a kind of Boston City Lab for polymers? (The grant also includes a partnership with Fisk University to expand engineering opportunities for African-Americans. How will that work?)

What business development opportunities exist with microlayering and nanolayering processes? For people to start to see a positive future for the region, the PD needs to be telling a lot more practical stories about what could be.

As we uncovered first at REI and later at I-Open, there are literally dozens of positive stories that capture exciting opportunities for our region: stories about new business models of open innovation; explosive growth among companies in preventive health care; the application of digital media to product development, medical research (robotic surgery) and education (in, for example, treating autism); new models of K-12 education; new models of high school engineering education (Fenn Academy); strong opportunities in MEMS; dynamic research in early childhood education; a good possibility for manufacturing wind power components (although Pennsylvania may have beaten us to the punch). The list goes on.

Yet, the editors of the PD are very slow (or unwilling) to figure any of this out.

We have no coverage of what is taking place in Milwaukee (a new initiative announced by the governor last week), Pittsburgh (continued technology-led development that is accelerating per capita income growth far past Cleveland), Detroit (a new strategy underway in January) or Cincinnati (expanded collaborations with Northern KY and a recent trip of civic leaders to Boston).

Indeed, the best recent Ohio coverage on economic development comes from the Toledo Blade. See, for example, Ohio economy sputters as innovation declines. For a model outside Ohio, look to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The editors are committed to shapng the regional dialogue in a positive way. See, for example, last week’s editorial Fostering innovation.

In my view, the casino story last fall damaged the reputation of the PD statewide. The casino story revealed that the PD editors have become little more than a shill for self-absorbed downtown real estate interests.

If we are going to have a strong regional economy (the jury is still out on that one), a vibrant, engaged newspaper will help significantly. The PD can do its part by putting some editorial focus on positive alternatives (not just "Cleveland: Dead or Dying" stories).

Our move to a more prosperous region will accelerate with stronger, more professional economic development coverage by the PD.