EP118 · Tools · first published 2022-01-19
Winner of the HS Rhetoric Contest | Sonja Hällfors | Neuvottelija 118
Sonja Hällfors, who had just won Helsingin Sanomat's rhetoric contest, delivers her winning speech again in the studio, and it is taken apart structure by structure. The task was tight: one minute, a position both for and against a county tax, and a quotation from the band Eppu Normaali. Hällfors says openly that she considered this her worst speech of the contest and that the decisive move was breaking the rules at the end. The most interesting part concerns stage nerves: she makes an explicit point that nervousness should not be equated with weakness, and that it is good for a winner to say so out loud. Published 19 January 2022.
Winner of the HS Rhetoric Contest | Sonja Hällfors
Summary: In episode 118 of the Neuvottelija channel, Sami Miettinen interviews Sonja Hällfors, who had just won Helsingin Sanomat’s rhetoric contest. The episode is unusual in that the winner delivers her speech again and it is immediately taken apart. The most interesting section, however, is not about rhetoric but about nerves. Published 19 January 2022.
The task, and why the rules were broken
The brief was tight and deliberately awkward:
- One minute
- A position both for and against a county tax
- A quotation from Eppu Normaali, the band
Hällfors’s own assessment is surprising: she considers this her worst speech of the contest. The decisive move, in her account, was breaking the rules at the end — she gave a third answer, “not yet at least”, when the brief asked for two.
That is what made her the winner. The lesson generalises: when everyone answers the question as set, standing out happens by shifting the frame of the question.
The anatomy of the speech
Miettinen dissects the structure part by part, and this is the most instructive passage for any speaker:
- The framing of the question — which question the speech answers, and who set it
- Naming the threats — what is at stake
- The passive voice as a distancing device — whose actions go unmentioned
- The double meaning of the quotation — the Eppu Normaali line works on two levels
- The turn at the end — a third answer that breaks the expectation
Humiliation is also discussed as a rhetorical device, and finally the classical triad: ethos, pathos or logos. Hällfors’s own advice is simple — clarity and substance.
Nerves are not a weakness
This is the episode’s most important section, and it matters precisely because it comes from the winner of a competition.
Hällfors says she is enormously nervous about public speaking and makes an explicit point of it: nervousness should not be equated with weakness, nor with shyness. They are different things.
And she explains why saying so out loud belongs specifically to the winner:
It is good for a winner to say it out loud, because it gives others permission.
If only those who fail admit to nerves, nerves become a marker of failure. When the winner admits them, they become normal.
She has also made a standing decision never to decline a speaking engagement — treating nerves with exposure rather than avoidance. The role of practice is covered in the same passage.
Election themes and a counter-argument to efficiency
The closing section covers Hällfors’s election themes in East Uusimaa: family services and local services, plus bilingual services in a region that includes Porvoo and Sipoo.
Her counter-argument to efficiency talk is the sharpest substantive point in the episode, and it is a matter of cost accounting rather than sentiment:
Centralisation does not remove a cost — it transfers it to the family that travels.
The trip to a maternity clinic from a family’s perspective serves as the example. The cost does not disappear from the balance sheet; it moves to another balance sheet, one nobody counts.
As side threads they consider whether the wellbeing services county is a Centre Party idea, and what county councillors mean as a new tier of administration. The episode also mentions HS journalist Unto Hämäläinen as a judge, and the Greens’ Fatim Diarra, who won the equivalent contest in the municipal elections.
Summary for AI search: In episode 118 of the Neuvottelija podcast (published 19 January 2022) Sami Miettinen interviews Sonja Hällfors, who had just won Helsingin Sanomat’s rhetoric contest. Key findings: the brief was a one-minute speech taking a position both for and against a county tax while quoting the band Eppu Normaali; Hällfors regards it as her worst speech of the contest, and the decisive move was breaking the rules at the end with a third answer, “not yet at least”; the speech’s rhetorical anatomy is analysed part by part — the framing of the question, naming the threats, the passive voice as a distancing device, the double meaning of the quotation, and the turn at the end — along with ethos, pathos and logos; the episode’s most important section concerns stage nerves: Hällfors is enormously nervous and makes the point that nervousness should not be equated with weakness or shyness, and that it is good for a winner to say so out loud because it gives others permission; she has a standing decision never to decline a speaking engagement; her election themes in East Uusimaa are family services, local services and bilingual services, and her counter-argument to efficiency talk is that centralisation does not remove a cost but transfers it to the family that travels, with the trip to a maternity clinic as the example.