Lagos or for that matter, Nigeria, is comprised of well to do people with fluctuating backgrounds and at the core of Soyinka's argument, he was looking for BBC to find away to encapsulate that essence and go beyond the surface layers of depicting Africans as stereotypical figures. Because at the end of the day a person watching this documentary in Texas, who has never been or lacks knowledge of Africa, will inevitable think, as I have, that this is representation of the whole nation, which is false. It is true there are Nigerians who are resilient, able to overcome adversity and then there are those who have never had to face adversity, those who come from hardworking parents and are afforded better opportunities than others, but as Salman Rushdie said in his essay "commonwealth literature does not exist", which confronts the dangers of lumping people, work, or group together because they come from, or write from the same place, "the creation of a false category can and does lead to excessively narrow, and sometimes misleading", this is to say, generalizing a nation of diverse circumstances is dangerous more importantly, maligning.
Similar to the discourse I provided in the previous paragraph, my stance on "Welcome to Lagos" is now: the representation and portrayal of Lagos, and for that matter Nigeria as a whole, is sorely lacking a balance. Beyond the deficient of equilibrium "Welcome to Lagos" imposed views that were sensationalistic and biased. Jeremy Weate of the Niajablog commented on the piece, in one of his blogs, with satisfaction, praising the film stating, "it left me with a sense of pride and desire" how could he feel a sense a self-respect and aspiration when three paragraphs down he also notes, " Will was unable or unwilling to find a story worth telling outside the slums of Lagos", these are two conflicting ideas.