Super Bowl LIII viewers were subjected to a night of pontificating by advertisers lecturing them on everything from divisive language to “girl power” and the power of the press.

CBS hosted the big game between the New England Patriots and the Los Angeles Rams and took the time to tout “girl power” in a spot featuring girls playing football.

“When girls face their challenges, they’re stronger,” Gayle King, host of “CBS This Morning,” said over a CBS Cares public service announcement. When girls work together, they realize their value. When girls get to play, they learn to win.”

The non-profit group, Girls Inc., teamed up to make the spot with CBS, the network that faced the exit of its chief executive, Les Moonves, last year due to multiple sexual harassment and assault allegations.

Sunday’s game was also peppered with politically correct advertisements that included Budweiser’s use of wind power to brew its beers and was sponsored by the new CBS series “Hanna.”

The new “coming-of-age drama” follows “the journey of an extraordinary young girl raised in the forest, as she evades the relentless pursuit of an off-book CIA agent and tries to unearth the truth behind who she is,” according to IMDb.

An ad for Bon & Viv Spiked Seltzer, the first commercial to air during Super Bowl LIII, featured a pair of shirt-wearing mermaids pitching their product to sharks in a play on the popular TV show, “Shark Tank.” The spot got some mixed reactions for the product as it seemed to wag a finger at objectifying mermaids.

“It has two females in a founder position and presented in a different way than we have ever seen alcohol present females characters before,” Chelsea Phillips, vice president of AB InBev, told AdAge. “The strength of these women is very important to me. As a female VP, I want to see more of that representation in this space, but I didn’t want it to be a trope. I just wanted it to feel natural…versus more of an overt statement.”

Google sermonized about divisive language to tout its translation feature in a telling advertisement that featured a segment with police in riot gear.

The politically correct commercials continued to air during the game Sunday even as CBS had rejected Nine Line Apparel’s pro-flag “Just Stand” ad for its obvious patriotism.

CBS rejects pro-flag ‘Just Stand’ Super Bowl ad narrated by US Marine Benghazi survivor: ‘Let’s call this what it is…’ https://t.co/6y7NZpQ0P9 pic.twitter.com/PCRtFlZKWZ — Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) February 3, 2019

The network, of course, cited other reasons for its decision not to run the 45-second commercial narrated by Benghazi survivor U.S. Marine Mark Geist.

One spot that didn’t go over so well with many viewers was delivered by The Washington Post and was meant to highlight the press. The self-serving spot was narrated by Tom Hanks and featured scenes making the point that journalism can be a dangerous but important job.

“The Super Bowl is a remarkable moment to recognize the courage and commitment of journalists around the world that is so essential to our democracy,” CEO Fred Ryan said in a statement on the newspaper’s website. “We decided to seize the opportunity to make this a milestone moment in our ongoing campaign.”

But the commercial sparked backlash, even among the publication’s own staff.

A staff writer at the paper and co-chair of its union, Fredrick Kunkle, slammed the multi-million dollar spot as an “infuriating expense.”

“The Post is now paying, say, $5M/30 seconds to tout journalistic freedom during one of the glitziest and – given the NFL’s knee-taking protests and concussions – more controversial sports events in our country,” Kunkle tweeted.

1) The Post is now paying, say, $5M/30 seconds to tout journalistic freedom during one of the glitziest and – given the NFL’s knee-taking protests and concussions – more controversial sports events in our country #superbowl #wapostrong — Fredrick Kunkle WaPo (@KunkleFredrick) February 2, 2019

2) While I too am extremely proud of the Post and its legacy, this seems like an especially infuriating expense for a company that has: a) tried to take away health care insurance from part-time employees b) moved everyone toward riskier forms of health insurance #wapostrong — Fredrick Kunkle WaPo (@KunkleFredrick) February 2, 2019

3) c) made it easier to lay people off d) cut their severance e) frozen their pensions and resisted the smallest enhancements to remaining retirement benefits until Sen. Bernie Sanders shamed it into doing so — Fredrick Kunkle WaPo (@KunkleFredrick) February 2, 2019

With recent layoffs at many news outlets, the spot raised the ire of many who believed spending the millions at this time was a poor decision.

I could have made that WaPo ad in about 20 minutes and I only would have charged $2 million. (Would have had @BrentScher do voice over) — David Rutz (@DavidRutz) February 4, 2019

WaPo’s ad highlights Anderson Cooper and Bret Baier? https://t.co/SKxFtiP77Q — Max Tani (@maxwelltani) February 4, 2019

Yeah, I have a lot of friends who work at the WaPo, but that ad was masturbatory mush. It will only hurt their brand. — Esoteric Jeff (@EsotericCD) February 4, 2019

Where is the wapo commercial about the very fake news media — Asawin Suebsaeng (@swin24) February 4, 2019

journalism is dead. all that’s left is political activism and hucksterism. — Caractacus (@Karaktacos) February 4, 2019

What. The. Hell. Was. That. — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) February 4, 2019

that wapo ad pic.twitter.com/DbBy1qIm2r — maura quint (@behindyourback) February 4, 2019

When you get there, tell the truth. — Vyvyan Basterd ?? (@VyvyanBasterdUK) February 4, 2019

Imagine working at WaPo and wanting a raise & seeing that bullshit $5,000,000 ad — Benny (@bennyjohnson) February 4, 2019

I missed the WaPo ad but wouldn’t have missed the 63 reporters they could have hired with that money. — Katelyn Burns (@transscribe) February 4, 2019