One way to understand Bob Costas’ comments about gun violence during halftime of NBC’s Sunday evening football game is to interpret them as yet another example of media self-absorption. And in fact, by turning a horrific story of domestic violence and suicide into a cheap story about the overwrought reaction to a professional commentator, the national press did proudly fulfill the timeless jeremiad of “Broadcast News” to “never forget (that) we’re the real story, not them.”

But as repulsive and predictable as that narcissism is, it did inadvertently spotlight a significant problem plaguing our civic discourse. Call it Shut Up and Sing Syndrome.

Named after a Laura Ingraham book and a 2006 documentary about the harsh reaction to the Dixie Chicks’ anti-Bush comments, this syndrome condemns many Americans to believe that actors, musicians and athletes — really, anyone not deemed political “experts” — have no right to use their platform to address issues considered “political” in nature. In this case, conservatives are insisting that Costas is not merely wrong on the substance of his gun-related comments, but also that, according to the New York Times, “it was inappropriate to use the platform of an NFL telecast to make arguments concerning a hot-button issue like gun control.”

The insinuation is that as a sportscaster, he has no standing to weigh in on a political issue. In other words, like critics of outspoken athletes who tell them to “shut up and play,” critics want Costas to simply “shut up and talk only about sports.”

For his part, Costas is refusing to be intimidated, pointing out that such whiners “would have thought (my comment) was fine if they agreed with what I was saying.” This is almost certainly true, once again reminding us that Shut Up and Sing Syndrome tends only to emerge on the right when a prominent figure says something that offends conservative sensibilities, but rarely emerges when a prominent figure says something that conservatives support.

Clearly, then, the syndrome is rooted less in principle than in ideology. And yet, even if the underlying principle was applied dispassionately and consistently, it is still problematic. In a democratic society, after all, every citizen is entitled to a voice, and they are entitled to that voice without having to first secure a “political expert” credential or label from a higher authority.

In concrete terms that means Costas is no less entitled to speak about public issues on the public airwaves than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — and that’s true even though the latter two are billed as “political” and Costas isn’t. To insist otherwise — to insist that Costas has no right while self-ordained “political experts” do — is to champion a hegemonic view of the public square. That is, a view implying that only certain pre-approved political elites have a right to make their voices heard.