Is it really a photograph of a wild bird?

The latest issue of a general wildlife magazine that is overseen by a national broadcasting organisation has at least one photograph on the front cover that is not actually of a wild creature.  Noting my specific interest, it may not be that difficult to work out which one it is.  I find this disappointing.  If they are talking about and promoting wildlife, then the pictures that they publish shouldn't be of captive creatures.  This is not a criticism of those that take pictures of captive animals as in general the organisations that allow access, and indeed set up photography days, are honourable in their endeavours. They are also great places to give money to and take pictures.   I just think that photographs of captive animals (alright, birds) shouldn't even be submitted as wild.  A few searches will find plenty of pictures of raptors sitting in fields of lavender and snowdrops etc.  Nice photography, but not wild photography.  I also have my suspicions about award winning  pictures of Barn Owls but perhaps more of that another day.  Basically, anyone that tries to take pictures of birds in the wild knows that it is difficult enough and many of us would like a picture in a magazine but it doesn't help if the magazine doesn't seem that thorough in their choices.

As if to prove the point that it is much easier to capture a half decent photograph of a captive bird, here is a photograph of a captive bird that I have yet to replicate in the wild.  I love the image, but I just couldn't bring myself to pass it off as wild.