I think Vietnam re-inforced how the media can influence a war by swaying public opinion. In a conflict such as this where public opinion is already an important consideration you can expect both sides to take as full advantage as possible - although someone needs to have a word with the Iraqi spokesperson about logical consistency.
"We did not attack your aircraft, you bombed a civillian utpost"
"Yes! We did attack your aircraft and shot one down!"
"Ok, ok, we locked onto your aircraft and our SAM site got tw@tted".
Now we have the miraculous scud launches "we don't have any and didn't launch them into Kuwait. Honest". And they wonder why the West didn't believe them about disarming? Apart from the receipts not tallying of course.
I won't list Western "changes in policy direction" as I'd probably exceed the word limit on the forum.
Sadly the press do exceed their bounds and risk the lives of forces involved. The BBC world service famously gave the Argentinian Garrison advanced notice they were being marched on at Goose Green, amongst other blunders. Let's all hope for a swift and realtively bloodless conclusion - we can all get back to not interfering with the Middle East and a situation where the only thing being shot at people gets wiped off at the end of the game (or during, for some).