They don't need to propose an alternative in order to get a look-in: the claim itself is bold enough to muster plenty of attention.
But is it true? Are you wasting your time with a modern anti-virus?
Is the anti-virus glass really half-empty?
Or is this sort of dismissive criticism the result of the ill-informed presumptions made by a few influential observers whose understanding of "anti-virus" is rooted back in 1986?
Read this thought-provoking essay by Paul Ducklin (direct link - no gates), in which he puts the case for modern anti-virus software, argues for defence-in-depth, and urges us all to stand together to fight cybercriminality, rather than taking petty pot-shots at each other.